Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Taxation of Online Sales

Duncan Baker: What steps he is taking to review the taxation of online sales to support the high street.

Jesse Norman: A change to the taxation of online sales would require careful consideration, as my hon. Friend is aware. Many high street retailers are moving more of their business online, and we want to help them to manage that transition, without increasing the costs for them or their customers. The business rates review that we have announced will work closely with stakeholders to consider this issue in more detail. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have taken significant steps to support our high streets, including huge cuts to business rates and the £3.6 billion towns fund.

Duncan Baker: Clearly, we are living through unprecedented times, and I want to say thank you to all the Treasury team for the incredible work they are doing—working throughout the night—to help businesses up and down the country. Many sectors will be hugely impacted by coronavirus, not least my home of North Norfolk. We are now seeing shops being shut on the high street—quite rightly so—and I just want the Minister to consider that they will be hit enormously. When we come out of this pandemic, a 2% or 3% VAT-style tax rise to help high streets would be very well considered and welcome. Let us just remember that our last great leader was Margaret Thatcher, who said that we are a nation of shopkeepers—let us help them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman ought not to take advantage. We are just starting. I think he has got the message.

Jesse Norman: I speak for all my colleagues in saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for his kind regards and wishes. Of course, all taxes are taken into account and monitored by the Treasury, and will be subject to consideration at future fiscal events. We are living through very unusual times. I hope my hon. Friend understands that the high street, which was under pressure years before the current outbreak, is something we have supported over a period of time, most recently with a comprehensive package of support. He will be aware of the specific measures we have taken to support eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister and the Department for all they are doing for businesses at this time; it is much appreciated. Will the Minister further outline whether he has managed to close the loophole that enables massive companies such as Amazon to operate out of the UK yet pay little tax here? If not, what has been done to ensure that no one is exempt from paying appropriate tax in the UK if they trade in the UK?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware that, in the Budget, we left in place our digital services tax, which is specifically designed to look at online marketplaces and other areas online that have user-generated content that needs to be appropriately taxed. We continue to pursue that tax.

Local Transport Infrastructure

Damien Moore: What fiscal steps he is taking to improve local transport infrastructure.

Antony Higginbotham: What fiscal steps he is taking to improve local transport infrastructure.

Rishi Sunak: The Government are committed to improving the vital transport links that people rely on every day. That is why in the Budget we announced a £500 million a year fund for potholes, confirmed £1 billion for shovel-ready local transport schemes through the transforming cities fund, and set out the Government’s intention to agree long-term intra-city transport settlements worth more than £4 billion.

Damien Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing. Businesses in my resort constituency have been delivered a significant blow due to covid-19. In good times, funding for the Burscough rail link would be a boost; in bad times, it could be business critical. Will he work with the Department for Transport and do everything he can to ensure that we get the funding for that vital link for our town?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact on hotel and hospitality businesses in particular. I hope he welcomes the significant cash grant support and business rates holidays for those businesses. With regard to his rail line, he is absolutely right about the importance of such links, which is why we set up a £500 million Beeching cuts reversal fund. I know the Department for Transport would be happy to hear from him.

Antony Higginbotham: Rail links will be essential to revitalising the economy once we exit this very difficult period. In Burnley, we have a fantastic rail link that connects us into Manchester, but unfortunately, at the minute, the station is not disability friendly. I know several stations across the country have been given funding to get them disability friendly, and I wonder whether a similar scheme will be announced in the future so that Burnley can finally get a bridge over its platforms.

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does championing improved accessibility for his disabled constituents, which is why in the Budget we  announced £50 million to remodel 12 stations. I spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport this morning about Burnley Manchester Road station, and he is happy to take a call from my hon. Friend.

Anneliese Dodds: Transport infrastructure and, indeed, all infrastructure relies on the construction industry, and in particular its workforce. We have had reports of workers working in close proximity in construction—indeed, I have seen that myself, including at transport-related facilities this morning—in some cases with no hygienic support and no evidence of enhanced cleaning. The industry has been described as a breeding ground for infection. What action is being taken to protect workers in that industry?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Member is absolutely right: we must ensure the safety of our workers in their industries. The guidance from the Government last night was clear that people should go to work if they cannot work from home. In common with other countries such as Italy or France, construction has remained open, but of course it is right that that is done safely. I know that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is in touch with the sector and I believe that he has had conversations about guidance in this regard.

Gavin Newlands: My local bus company is one of many, I am sure, across the country that has had to introduce short-time working, but it is unsure about the implementation of the Chancellor’s very welcome wage subsidy. Will the Treasury top up the wages of those working two or three-day weeks, or does it have to lay off, say, 70% of the workforce and rely on the remainder to cover the rest of the routes, putting themselves at risk for a similar amount of money? Can the Chancellor clear that up for us, please?

Rishi Sunak: We said that we would aim to have the scheme up and running by the April payroll. This is a brand new system that has to be designed from scratch. Claims could be backdated from 1 March, which will provide significant support to businesses and jobs, and in common with all other schemes like this across the world, the scheme applies to furloughed workers in proportion to the hours they have worked—but to workers who are put on furlough rather than being retained in employment.

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Mark Pritchard: What fiscal steps he is taking to help businesses affected by the Covid-19 outbreak.

Scott Mann: What fiscal steps he is taking to support small business owners.

Rishi Sunak: The Government remain committed to doing what they can to support businesses, our people and public services. In the last week, I have announced unprecedented measures to support business, including over £300 billion of Government-backed loans, £20 billion of tax cuts and grants, a VAT deferral worth 1.5% of GDP and a  landmark job retention scheme guaranteeing 80% of the wages of furloughed workers. We believe that these measures represent the most comprehensive and generous suite of interventions of any major developed country in the world.

Mark Pritchard: On behalf of my constituents, I welcome those announcements. The Chancellor, though, will know that 15% of the UK workforce is self-employed, equating to about 5 million people up and down the country. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, there are 5,600 in The Wrekin. When will the Government come forward with plans for the self-employed and freelancers, given the immediacy of their need?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I will be making further announcements about progress on these measures. It is something that we have been looking at in intense detail over the past week in the Treasury. What I can say to him is that we are in dialogue with all the key stakeholder groups, including calls that I am having today with several of those bodies. There are genuine practical and principled reasons why it is incredibly complicated to design a scheme that is analogous to the one that we have for employed workers, but he can rest assured that we absolutely understand the situation that many self-employed people face at the moment as a result of what is happening and we are determined to find a way to support them. We need to be confident that that can be done in a way that is deliverable and fair to the vast majority of the British workforce.

Scott Mann: On behalf of my residents in North Cornwall, I thank the Treasury for the support that it has put in place for employees and employers over the last few days, with this unprecedented series of events. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I want to ask about self-employment. I have a huge number of self-employed people in North Cornwall. I know that the Treasury is under a huge amount of pressure at this time, but I urge expediency on that so that we can get a package of measures in place for them, too.

Rishi Sunak: As I said, we are looking at this in immense detail and at pace. As has been acknowledged by many stakeholders in the industry, there are genuine questions about practicality, fairness and delivery of any such support scheme, which is why it requires careful thought.

John Martin McDonnell: We have an urgent question on the self-employed after this, but to add to the comments that have been made so far, there is a sense of urgency about this now. There is no Member of this House who has not been contacted by a constituent who is in quite a distressed state about that. One of the most effective ways of supporting businesses is to make sure that the whole workforce is supported. There is another group—2 million workers are on zero-hours and there are part-time workers. They are still not eligible for statutory sick pay and they appear to be excluded as well from the job retention scheme, which is focused on the definition of “employees” while, in law, these are referred to and defined as “workers”. I have written to the Chancellor about this, so will he make a  statement urgently that sets out how these workers will be protected in the same way as other workers were in the announcement on Friday?

Rishi Sunak: It is not the case that those who are on zero hours are not eligible for the existing scheme. Depending on their status, they would absolutely be eligible for the job retention scheme. It could be based on an average of previous earnings over a period in order to get smoothing, but there is no reason why they should not be eligible. In fact, any worker who was on a PAYE scheme is eligible for the job retention scheme.

John Martin McDonnell: That is really helpful. I have welcomed the statements from the Chancellor to date, and I welcome that as well. I am grateful for the work that he is doing. There was confusion, and many of us had representations on that. I would like him to clarify one other point: he might have done so earlier and I missed it. Some people are being asked to work reduced hours in the interests of the company rather than being furloughed overall, and it appears that those people may also be excluded from the scheme. There is a lack of clarity on that: again, could the Chancellor confirm whether those workers will be included in the scheme? If not, can he bring forward a fairly urgent reform to the scheme to enable that to happen?
One other category we have had questions on is those people who have work available but cannot do it because of the shutdown of their childcare arrangements and as a result have childcare responsibilities. Are they are eligible for the furlough support scheme as well?

Rishi Sunak: In common with schemes all around the world, the schemes are for furloughed workers. The check is that the company decides to put an employee into a furlough scheme rather than retain them as employed. That is exactly the same as every other scheme. It is not possible to design a scheme that deals with flexible hours, with the result that the state would essentially be subsidising the wages of almost the entire workforce. It is something that we looked at in detail and, given the time we have available, we went with a scheme that could be delivered and is in common with almost every scheme around the world that does exactly the same thing.

Richard Thomson: It is vital that we work across party lines at this time, and the SNP very much welcomes the Chancellor’s economic package for firms and workers announced last Friday. Given that millions of small businesses, freelancers and the self-employed are understandably concerned about their incomes, we welcome the fact that the Chancellor is considering a response to that and understand that it is important to get it right, but when does he expect to be able to come back to the House and announce the details?

Rishi Sunak: As I said, we are looking at these things. I will not commit to a specific day until we know we can work through the details. One of the issues is that of course there are people whose incomes have been enormously impacted by what is going on currently, but there are also millions of people who are self-employed whose incomes may not have been impacted and, indeed, might be increasing. The ability of the Government to distinguish between those people, based on tax returns  that are over a year and a half out of date, poses some very significant challenges in terms of fairness and affordability.

Richard Thomson: I thank the Chancellor for that answer, and our offer to work with him to protect incomes remains open. As part of his deliberations on this and in order to simplify the process of getting the money to where it needs to go, will he consider using the tax and welfare system to roll out a universal basic income in these times?

Rishi Sunak: We are not in favour of a universal basic income, although we have strengthened the safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, with more than £7 billion invested into improving our welfare system for this year, including improvements to universal credit, employment support allowance and, indeed, the local housing allowance. Those payments are all available more quickly, more easily and more generously than they were before, and I know that will make an enormous difference to many vulnerable people.

Derek Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that seems unique to my constituency. The Isles of Scilly sit 28 miles off Land’s End, and all people and supplies travel via large and small private companies. Those businesses rely on the tourist trade in the summer, but that has completely collapsed, and every single one of those businesses is liable to collapse if the Government cannot move quickly. Can the Chancellor look at this issue urgently, because 2,500 people are relying on urgent action from the Treasury to make sure that their transport infrastructure system is sustained and retained?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about his particular constituency issue, which I know poses particular challenges. We have committed to providing local authorities—and indeed all Departments —with any funding required to support public services, including local transport infrastructure in their communities.

Wes Streeting: On behalf of my constituents who will benefit from the measures that the Chancellor announced last week, may I sincerely thank him for the action that he has taken and for the responsibility that he is carrying? We are all rooting for him to succeed in the task ahead. The challenge, as others have described, is that for those who do not benefit, in particular the 5 million self-employed, the anxiety has increased, because they have seen a ship sailing carrying others but not them. I think they will be reassured that the Chancellor has given a clear commitment to do something, but many are facing a cash-flow crisis right now, so can he say a bit more to reassure them about how quickly he can implement the measures that he is considering?

Rishi Sunak: 1 am very grateful to the hon. Member for his warm words; I appreciate them. We are looking at pace at what support can be provided. The fact is that the universe of 5 million that we are dealing with contains such a wide variety of different people that we are unable to target support. That is the challenge in designing something that gets to the people who we want to help, while at the same time being affordable and not having to benefit absolutely everybody. That is proving to be problematic, but we are hard at work on it.
In terms of delivery, it is almost certainly going to be the case that we would have to build another brand-new system to deliver any support. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that, in terms of prioritising system design, the scheme that we have set up for 90% of the workforce who are employed should be delivered first and quickly, and that is what we have committed to do, ideally by the end of April. We are looking at how we can do these things in sequence or in parallel, but I take the hon. Member’s point: people are anxious. That is why we deferred the self-assessment tax return that is due shortly to provide some cash-flow benefit. We have also deferred VAT to a significant degree, which will help with cash-flow benefit, and many self-employed people will benefit from the business interruption loans, which are also interest-free.

Emergency Cash Grant Scheme

Philip Hollobone: What estimate he has made of the number of businesses in (a) Kettering constituency, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England that will benefit from the emergency cash grant scheme announced on 17 March 2020.

Jesse Norman: We are providing cash grants of £10,000 to over 700,000 small and medium-sized businesses across England and grants of up to £25,000 per property for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. We estimate that these combined measures will benefit up to 1 million businesses in England. Local authorities will deliver these grants over the coming weeks and consequently will have information about the number of firms that have benefited at a local level in due course.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. May I thank the Chancellor and the Treasury for coming forward at top speed with this business support package? May I also thank all the hard-working staff at Kettering Borough Council who will be delivering these grants to local businesses? Will the Minister send out the message to Kettering and the country that when the economy comes roaring back, once this pandemic is over, local authorities will have played a key role in ensuring that that happens?

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for that wise comment. We very much share his views. Local authorities are crucial to delivery of a whole range of the support that we are now giving, and we will be very much acknowledging their role. We will also be supporting them, as he will know, through the business rates process and the hardship fund.

Rent a Room Scheme

Andrew Lewer: What assessment he has made of the socioeconomic effect of raising the Rent a Room Scheme threshold to £7,500.

Jesse Norman: As my hon. Friend will know, Rent a Room relief has been a feature of the income tax system since 1992. In 2016, the Government raised the threshold to £7,500. That was designed to deliver the Government’s objective   of supporting individuals’ living standards and freeing up space in the housing market. It also reduces and simplifies the tax administrative burden for those affected and has taken some taxpayers out of self-assessment entirely.

Andrew Lewer: Given that some 37% of homes in the country are under-occupied, my right hon. Friend will realise that encouraging more owners to take in lodgers could provide affordable housing to thousands more people. Will he please look to review whether there should be a higher level, perhaps £9,500, for live-in landlords with two or more lodgers, and would he be willing to have a virtual meeting with the Lodger Landlords Association at an appropriate time?

Jesse Norman: I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. In 2016, as I have mentioned, the Government raised the threshold. In 2018, the Government consulted on the scheme and there was consensus among the respondents that the relief provides an effective incentive for people to make spare rooms available for rent. Of course, I take his point and he has put it squarely on the record. As with all tax policy, we will look at this and other measures and keep them under review.

Stuart McDonald: I think we are all united in saying that nobody should lose their home as a result of financial hardship brought about by the coronavirus pandemic. Again, we absolutely welcome the steps that the Chancellor and the Treasury have taken so far, but is it possible to find more fiscal support to safeguard tenants in the private rented sector so that we can guarantee that these people are also able to keep their homes in the months ahead?

Jesse Norman: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have specifically ruled out the possibility of eviction for three months, and we will continue to look at that situation as well.

School Funding

Stuart Anderson: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on school funding.

Steve Barclay: I regularly discuss school funding with the Secretary of State for Education. At the spending round, the Government committed to a £7.1 billion cash increase in the funding for schools in England by 2022-23.

Stuart Anderson: I understand that there are immediate pressing issues for the Department, but after this will my right hon. Friend arrange to meet me and the Education Secretary to discuss the funding of a secondary school in Wolverhampton?

Steve Barclay: I would be very happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend. He will be aware of the significant allocation to capital funding that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, and obviously part of the discussion at the comprehensive spending round will be the allocation of that budget.

Chris Matheson: When the Minister is meeting the Secretary of State for Education, will he also talk about funding for the early years and nurseries sector? The 30 hours of free childcare is not working, and many of these nurseries were facing unviability before the current crisis.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because across the House people recognise the importance of early years and early intervention, but he will be aware of the wider package of funding showing the Government’s commitment to education, not just in primary schools and secondary schools but through the measures on further education set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget.

NHS Funding

Stephen Crabb: What steps he is taking to ensure the adequacy of funding for the NHS.

Steve Barclay: We have been clear that the NHS will get whatever it needs to respond to the coronavirus. The Chancellor announced at Budget a £5 billion response fund and we have already allocated a significant proportion of that to a range of measures.

Stephen Crabb: What frontline staff do in the NHS every single day is remarkable at the best of times, and what we are asking them to do now and in the weeks ahead will be incredibly challenging in terms of both the physical and emotional pressures and the personal risks to NHS staff, so would my right hon. Friend reaffirm that as well as providing the extra money announced in the Budget, the Government will do all they can to ensure that frontline NHS staff get all the equipment they need, including protective clothing, to get the country through this crisis?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Chancellor has made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to protect our NHS frontline, not just through PPE, as he correctly identifies, but by looking at additional capacity, such as in the independent hospitals sector, and at the support available, including the £1.3 billion allocated to speed up the discharge of patients, the £1.6 billion allocated to local authorities for adult social care and, of course, funding such as the £30 million for diagnostics research and £10 million for diagnostic testing that has also been allocated in recent days.

Anneliese Dodds: As a House, we require more specific detail about exactly what funding and arrangements are being provided across Government in relation to testing and PPE availability. We are all hearing from staff that they do not have the resources they need. The Minister talked about that funding, but to what extent is it being spent in the field, and what discussions has his Department had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care about pulling in additional manufacturers not just for ventilators but for PPE and testing?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady will know from the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that significant efforts have been made on this, working with domestic manufacturers and procuring additional resource and stock internationally. On funding, we have been very clear with the Department of Health and Social Care that it will have whatever funding it needs, and that has been the case to date.

Covid-19: VAT Reduction

Owen Thompson: Whether he plans to reduce VAT for businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Jesse Norman: Last Friday, the Government announced that they were deferring VAT payments for the next quarter, so that UK VAT-registered businesses will not need to pay any VAT, alongside their normal VAT returns, until the end of June. That deferral is worth more than £30 billion, or 1.5% of GDP. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already offers help to businesses struggling to meet their VAT payments, with arrangements such as Time to Pay. In the light of the covid-19 outbreak, the Chancellor has outlined a range of measures to help businesses through the crisis, including grants, loans and relief from business rates worth more than £330 billion. The Treasury will continue to review this and make further announcements as events unfold.

Owen Thompson: Scottish National party Members welcome the actions that have been announced so far by the Chancellor to support the economy during this outbreak. Given the particular strain felt by sectors such as hospitality, will the Minister consider reducing the VAT rate they are charged, in addition to the deferrals already announced?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will be aware that those businesses will fall under the VAT announcements that have already been made for the next quarter and that they are also already the beneficiaries of grants of £10,000 for the smallest businesses and of £25,000 for larger ones in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors.

Marine Renewables: Fiscal Support

Alistair Carmichael: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on fiscal support for the development of marine renewables.

John Glen: The Government take seriously their climate change responsibilities, including the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That means enabling a diverse range of low-carbon technologies, and we see the use of marine renewables in the future energy mix, though developers must demonstrate how those can compete with the low prices achieved by wind and solar technologies.

Alistair Carmichael: In order to compete with those technologies, these renewables have to get from the research and development stage to commercial deployment.  The industry knows that and has come up with a mechanism known as the innovation power purchase agreement. Is there any reason why the Government are not engaging with that? I have to tell the Minister that these developers are not going to hang around in this country forever. If they cannot make that step here, they will go elsewhere and do it.

John Glen: I am very aware of the 1,700 people who work in this area in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across Wales and Scotland. I am also aware that he wrote to the previous Exchequer Secretary, who moved post before he could get a reply. At the moment, renewables are five times more expensive than wind and solar, but the Government will engage in a dialogue with the industry as we look to resolve this and move forward constructively.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Andrew Rosindell. He is not here.

Low-paid Workers: Wages Increase

Paul Bristow: What steps he is taking to increase wages for low-paid workers.

John Glen: Low-paid workers will continue to benefit from above-average pay rises, with the national living wage set to reach two thirds of median earnings and to be extended to workers aged 21 and over by 2024, providing economic conditions allow. That is projected to benefit nearly 4 million low-paid workers.

Paul Bristow: I thank the Minister for that response and for everything he is doing to protect jobs in Peterborough and across the country. I was proud to stand on our manifesto in December and, in particular, on our commitment to protect the low paid. The Government have taken vital steps in the short term to protect jobs. Will he confirm that this Budget is also providing a £200 tax cut for the typical family in Peterborough?

John Glen: Absolutely. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a typical employee will be about £104 better off next year through the cut in national insurance and the freeze in fuel and alcohol duties, and the abolition of other taxes, such as the tampon tax, will also be of benefit to many of his constituents, for whom he has been fighting hard since he came to this place.

Kevin Brennan: Many low-paid workers are self-employed. When I raised this matter with the Leader of the House yesterday, he said:
“The Government are inevitably conscious that when we close places by order and that has an effect on people’s livelihoods, there is a societal responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 27.]
Many of these low-paid self-employed people work in the music industry. I know that we have an urgent question coming up, but I say to the Minister that they will be looking for more reassurance than we have heard so far this morning that the Government are going to introduce a scheme and do it soon.

John Glen: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out clearly not only the range of measures that we have taken but our determination to come up with an enduring solution that addresses the range of challenges. The whole Treasury team is fully aware of how distressing and challenging people are finding it out there and we are working as fast as we can to come up with a solution that works for everyone.

David Linden: If the current coronavirus and financial crisis has taught us one thing, it is that we need to look again at zero-hours contracts and the difficulty that they put many of our constituents in. I very much welcome the measures that have been brought forward on support for businesses and employees, and I very much hope that we will hear about support for the self-employed in the response to the urgent question this afternoon, but there is a lot of concern among zero-hours workers. Will the Minister outline what support the Government are going to bring forward for zero-hours workers in Glasgow East?

John Glen: If they are on pay-as-you-earn, they are eligible for the job-retention scheme, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the range of concerns that exist, and we continue to look carefully at what we can do to enhance the measures that have already been announced. He will be aware of the enhancements to the welfare package—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that an additional £6.5 billion has been put in so far—and we will continue to look at what more can be done.

Bill Esterson: I encourage the Minister not to make the perfect the enemy of good in the design of the scheme. Many self-employed workers are worrying about their inability to put food on the table this week. They are finding the universal credit system completely overwhelmed, so I encourage Ministers to announce the scheme and make sure that the cash gets through. It has to be soon; otherwise, people are going to be in real hardship.

John Glen: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. That issue is why we have tried to move forward on interventions that could be done quickly and have done them as quickly as we can. In respect of universal credit, we have increased the UC standard allowance from £317.82 to £409.89 per month for single claimants. We have increased the local housing allowance, we have relaxed the earnings rules for self-employed UC claimants, and we will continue to look at every measure that we can to make an impact in the lives of those people who are suffering as the hon. Gentleman describes.

Patrick Grady: The Minister talks about looking at every measure that we can, but the Chancellor just appeared to rule out a universal minimum basic income. Is that not quite disappointing? The way to answer these questions—the way to avoid thousands of people being laid off, ending up on universal credit and potentially getting trapped in the benefits system—is to provide a minimum income guarantee for everyone. That would also help to provide a fiscal stimulus in the economy once we start to get through this crisis.

John Glen: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out clearly the reasons why we have some concerns about, and indeed would not want to have, that universal guarantee. We want to make sure that the interventions we make are targeted at those who are most in need at this time, and not giving money unnecessarily to people who are wealthy.

Topical Questions

Joy Morrissey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Rishi Sunak: We are facing an unprecedented challenge as a country, as a Government and as a society. The spread of the coronavirus has precipitated the extraordinary but necessary actions taken by this Government over the past week to protect people’s health and livelihoods and the economy we all rely on. There will be challenging times ahead, and despite the significant economic interventions that we have put in place, we will not be able to protect every single job or save every single business, but I am confident that the measures we have put in place will provide support to millions of people and businesses and ensure that we do get through this, get through it together, and emerge on the other side both stronger and more united.

Joy Morrissey: The start-up loan programme has been hugely successful in getting thousands of new businesses off the ground, particularly in my constituency of Beaconsfield. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement that the programme will be extended is hugely welcome news for entrepreneurs right across the country?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a champion for entrepreneurship in her constituency, and rightly so. The start-up loan programme is an excellent programme, providing grants of £25,000 for budding entrepreneurs. It has been operational for some years now and has provided almost 70,000 loans, putting to work more than half a billion pounds. It is absolutely right that, as we think about our future coming through the coronavirus, it will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow who will help to create new jobs and drive the prosperity that we will all want to see.[Official Report, 21 April 2020, Vol. 675, c. 1MC.]

John Martin McDonnell: May I again welcome much of what the Chancellor is doing, and say that we wish to work with him as positively as we possibly can in this very difficult period? I just wish to return to the issue of zero-hours workers. The Chancellor said very clearly that this applies to all those who are on PAYE, and I welcome that, but the point that we have been making is that many of these zero-hours contract workers—in fact, most of them—are not on PAYE. They are called limb (b) workers, so the scheme does not apply to them. I understand that he is doing his best and I understand the complications, but he has also said that for zero-hours workers, employers may compensate on the basis of average hours worked. The unions in this field representing those workers have urged that this should be mandatory and applied to all zero-hours and variable-hours workers based on average earnings over the previous weeks. That is exactly how those workers’ holiday pay is calculated at the moment, and it  is an accurate reflection of what they earn. We need some urgent action for this sizeable group of workers. There are at least nearly a million zero-hours workers, perhaps a million more.

Rishi Sunak: As we are putting in place the detailed guidance for the scheme, we are actively considering the question of how best to average the earnings of people in this situation. I very much take on board the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that my team are engaging with those unions as we speak to try to get the details right.

John Baron: I commend the Chancellor and his team for the robust policy response that we have seen to this crisis so far, but may I ask them to continue to focus laser-like on the issue of cash flow, which is particularly important to smaller businesses, particularly important to the workforce, and particularly important to the vulnerable groups in society? That issue of cash flow is probably the most important when it comes to determining employment, which is important to everyone in this Chamber and to the country at large.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of cash flow, which is why we have targeted our interventions specifically at smaller businesses by providing extra cash flow support. We have done so through the £10,000 grant to every business in receipt of small business rate or rural rate relief and, indeed, through the deferral of VAT, which starts from today for the quarter. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, that represents more than £35 billion, or 1.5% of GDP-worth of tax deferral, providing immediate cash-flow support. We have done the same thing for self-assessment payments that are due in the coming months and have also, as of yesterday, launched a business interruption loan scheme, which my hon. Friend has done fantastic work developing. It will provide 12-month interest-free loans to small businesses, again, to help provide them with the liquidity that they need to get through this.

Ruth Cadbury: I acknowledge that the Government are dealing with an incredible number of challenges at this time and pay tribute on behalf of all MPs to the work that has been done by Ministers, by those on the Front Benches and by the people behind the scenes who are supporting them in this work.
The financial challenges of families with children have not yet been specifically addressed, so will the Treasury listen to the Child Poverty Action Group and work with the Department for Work and Pensions on a fairly simple solution that will put money directly into the pockets of families with children, which is temporarily to increase child benefit?

Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the suggestion, and we will certainly look closely at the Child Poverty Action Group’s recommendation.

Simon Baynes: On behalf of my constituents in Clwyd South, may I commend the Treasury team for its hard and speedy work over the  past couple of weeks? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government will stand behind businesses, small and large, in Clwyd South and elsewhere in Wales and the UK as the crisis progresses?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to the work that he is doing to represent his constituents and make sure that his local businesses get the support that they need. I hope that his businesses welcome the various interventions that we have provided in terms of cash flow support, tax relief deferrals, and subsidised loans to help them get through this difficult period. If he has further ideas that he thinks we should consider, I would be very happy to talk to him further.

Kevan Jones: Supply teachers play a vital role in our schools. Many thousands, including my constituent Ellie Atkinson, have found themselves out of work, so may I urge the Treasury to look at a way of supporting these vital workers, either with direct financial support or by ensuring that they can actually work in the schools that are being kept open?

Steve Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman will know that school budgets have been allocated, so the schools already have that money to spend; that will not change. The announcement that the Chancellor has made about the PAYE system is about supporting people through that mechanism. If the right hon. Gentleman has other proposals, I am happy to engage with him to discuss them further.

Nicola Richards: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s world-leading package of support to businesses. There are many charities and community care providers in West Bromwich East, including Sandwell Community Caring Trust, which are all working extremely hard to protect the vulnerable. I thank them, and all the teachers and frontline staff in my constituency. Will he confirm that all charities that pay through PAYE will be eligible for the scheme and relief package?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and join her in paying tribute to Sandwell Community Caring Trust, which we will be relying on through this difficult period. I can confirm that charities are eligible for the job retention support programme. Further to that, we have allocated extra funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide money to local charitable or caring organisations, especially to help those we are attempting to shield—the most vulnerable—in order to protect them against the effects of the coronavirus.

John Spellar: Yesterday in the Chamber, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised the question of escalating prices in local shops and concerns about profiteering. We understand that the Competition and Markets Authority may be looking into this issue, but may I ask the Minister to urge it very rapidly to look at where this is taking place? Is it local shops, wholesalers or cash and carry, or suppliers? Is it even to do with the international market in terms of perishable goods? This is a matter of real concern. Once the Government have found out where the problem is, will they bring forward measures to crack down on this profiteering?

John Glen: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point, and sets out a range of issues. The Government will be looking into this, and I will liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that they are focusing on all the dimensions of the problem that he has outlined.

Desmond Swayne: The Chancellor has been more creative and accommodating than his equivalents in any other jurisdiction. Setting aside the question of fairness, how practical is it to use historical tax data to try to impute a wage equivalent for the self-employed?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. It is certainly possible to use those historical returns. They are a year and a half out of date, so they will be necessarily imperfect. They also do not provide an easy way to distinguish between those who are deserving of support and whose incomes are being affected by what is happening, and those who are much wealthier and whose incomes are potentially increasing currently, but they do provide a basis and a universe to look at.

Bill Esterson: When I mentioned earlier that the universal credit system was overwhelmed, the Minister may not quite have taken on board the point I was raising. A self-employed worker sent me a screenshot of their attempts to use the system yesterday; 33,383 people were ahead of them in the queue to use the claims section of the website. Unless this is resolved, people who need money right now—limited though that money is under universal credit—simply will not be able to get hold of it through the system.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the pressure on the Department for Work and Pensions at this time. That is a key reason why the design of the schemes that we have been looking at and that have been put forward by the Chancellor do not add complexity and pressure on the DWP. We have been actively working on identifying where we can free up and reprioritise resource in DWP to assist with this issue. I have been discussing the matter with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and working closely with her on it.

Henry Smith: Obviously, airports and airlines are particularly adversely affected by the covid-19 situation.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right, especially given his constituency, to highlight the importance of airlines and airports. They have been particularly impacted by what is happening. I am in active dialogue with the Secretary of State for Transport and expect to write soon on that matter.

Neale Hanvey: In Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and other constituencies, public service workers, not bankers or nuclear weapons, will get us through this crisis. We must therefore change our focus. Will the Chancellor consider whether the nurses, doctors and other public service workers, who will be doing double shifts and working extra hours to  get us through, can get tax relief on those extra hours so that they are properly rewarded and recognised for their tremendous efforts?

Rishi Sunak: We pay tribute to our public sector workers, particularly those who are on the frontline of the NHS as we speak. We have said that we will make any and all funding available to the NHS to provide and support that workforce. That is exactly what we are doing, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary outlined earlier. In the Budget, we specifically changed the taper relief, which was causing hours challenges for senior doctors and GPs. That was a significant fiscal intervention—we are providing more than £2 billion of tax relief to ensure that there is no disincentive for those senior clinicians to provide the extra work at this time.

Tobias Ellwood: The economic interventions that the Chancellor spoke about are greatly welcome in Bournemouth East. Will he join me in paying tribute to the armed forces for what they are doing and what they will do? We should all recognise that that is in addition to their day job of keeping the nation safe. What will happen in the spending review? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is additional capacity for our armed forces so that they can deal with the threats that continue to exist, but also have the ability to step forward to help the nation in times of crisis?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our armed services, and I join him in paying tribute to them for what they are doing, not just to keep us safe every day, but right now when we are calling on them to help us meet this public health emergency. As we speak, they are doing extraordinary work to help our healthcare system to respond to what is coming. We recognise that, and it will be recognised when we think about funding for the armed services not just today, but in the future.

Wes Streeting: One newspaper is already reporting that the Chancellor will implement an income protection scheme for the self-employed and make an announcement in the next 24 hours. I must say I got a slightly longer timescale from the Chancellor’s earlier reply, when he talked about the end of April. To come back to the point about reassurance, will he give some real reassurance now to those anxious self-employed people across the country that an announcement will be made very shortly?

Rishi Sunak: We hope to have something to say very shortly. Implementation will take longer for the reasons I outlined, when a good point was made about capacity, whether at HMRC or DWP, to deliver brand-new schemes. However, in terms of saying what we plan to do, hopefully we can do that relatively shortly. Implementation will take longer because of the clear delivery challenges that the scheme would pose.

Jacob Young: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Treasury team for all their work to help people through this crisis. Will my right hon. Friend outline when employers can access the scheme for job retention scheme and furloughed workers?

Rishi Sunak: Detailed guidance is available. Further guidance will be provided and our aim is to build the new scheme so that it is operational by the end of April. That is a challenge. We are already working night and day to construct something from scratch, but claims will be allowed to be backdated to 1 March so that businesses have the security of knowing that the cash-flow rebate will be coming. As I have said, the aim is to have the scheme up and running so that the April payroll can be reimbursed through it.

Chris Matheson: One of the problems with this crisis is that we do not know how long it is going to last. I have businesses in my constituency—events companies, conference companies and sporting companies—that have long lead-in times to organise their events, but they cannot cancel them yet and thereby claim insurance because there is no Government guidance. Do the Government have any plans to give guidance, particularly to the insurance companies and events companies, that will perhaps say, “No events for the next six months”?

John Glen: We are working closely with the insurance industry, and obviously events companies are underpinned by contractual obligations. We established that if they have cover relevant to non-specified diseases, the announcements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have triggered those policies to be paid out, but I am happy to look at any specific cases that individual Members want to bring to me, which I can take up with industry representatives.

Stephen Crabb: In the wake of the last economic crisis, when we needed the banks to stand on the side of small businesses, too often they did not, and many of us have seen too many examples of small businesses being bullied into bankruptcy. What can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say about the posture he wants to see from the banks at this time?

John Glen: The Chancellor and I have had dialogue with individual heads of high street banks. I have been speaking to the head of UK Finance this morning and will be convening a meeting of bank representatives later today. We anticipate that the banks should be taking the most sympathetic forbearance measures possible, and we have set out very clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did, that the loan scheme is interest-free for the first 12 months, with no fees or repayment penalties. I expect the banks to step up to the mark, as I know they will. We have to remember that many of the people actually delivering this service in high street branches or in call centres are not very well paid and are working flat-out to deliver a key service to our nation at this time.

David Linden: The message from the Prime Minister last night for our constituents to stay at home could not have been clearer, but many of our constituents who are staying at home will have increased energy bills as a result. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is co-ordinating a cross-party letter to the Government asking for a reduction in VAT on energy bills. Are they willing to look favourably upon that to support our constituents, who will have higher energy bills as a result of staying at home?

Jesse Norman: We are certainly very happy to look at whatever letter the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues on a cross-party basis may wish to present.

Stuart Anderson: I want to follow on from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and talk about our great armed forces. I expressed my delight at the budget of £10 million identified for veterans’ mental health. Will the Chancellor confirm that that will remain a priority, as the problem does not go away?

Steve Barclay: I am happy to give that assurance. I know my hon. Friend is a champion—rightly so—of our armed forces and speaks with great experience and authority on that. He will be aware of a number of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced. That is one of them, and we stand by it.

Kevin Brennan: A couple of times in the context of the self-employed, the Chancellor has mentioned wealthy people whose incomes are increasing. That is not who we are talking about. We are talking about people who have lost their entire income overnight. Will he please provide some more reassurance that it is his intention to provide help to those people? Does he intend to say how he will do that very soon and say to the banks in the meantime that they should be extending credit on a free basis, on the basis of what he has promised, so that people can get on with their lives?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman illustrates exactly the issue with such a scheme. Looking at historical tax return data from a year and a half ago gives absolutely no guide as to whether someone today who is self-employed is prosperous, and indeed that their income may be increasing versus someone, who is not. Of course I am sympathetic to those whose situation is being adversely affected by what is going on. The issue is one of finding a way to target help at them, rather than having something that provides blanket cash subsidies to 5 million people, many of whom will not need it, which will end up costing all our constituents on modest incomes a   considerable amount. It is about finding a way to target support for those who most need it, and that is what is requiring time and thought.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Chancellor join me in thanking Shropshire Council and the hard-working people at Telford and Wrekin Council? Cash flow is becoming a real issue for many local councils, with many having to borrow. Could he encourage his officials in the Treasury to be a bit more flexible as to where finance can come from and the use of reserves?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to look at specific suggestions. I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend’s council but to all councils for the sterling work they are doing in delivering our grant schemes to many of their small local businesses. We are in dialogue already with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that councils’ cash-flow needs are adequately met. There are things we are doing actively in terms of the timing of the various grant payments we make, to ease some of the near-term cash-flow pressures.

Jim Shannon: Can the Chancellor clarify whether the emergency cash grant scheme is intended to help per shop for businesses with more than one premise in different towns, or is it just for the business as a whole?

Rishi Sunak: The detailed eligibility criteria are online and will be provided by local authorities. The grants of £10,000 are done on a per premise basis for businesses that are in receipt of small business rate relief and rural rate relief. There are larger grants for those in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector of up to £25,000. The Business Secretary has written already to local authorities, which are, as we speak, writing to businesses that are eligible for those grants to seek their bank details and start making cash payments as soon as is practically possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we move on to the urgent question, I should say that I am bothered that Members are rather close in some areas of the Chamber. If it is possible to spread out, I would be very grateful.

Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

Edward Davey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor to make a statement on financial support for the self-employed in the light of the covid-19 pandemic.

Steve Barclay: We know that many self-employed people are in real distress, but we are working urgently to address this problem, and I say to the self-employed: we have not forgotten you—help is coming. But the policy and delivery are complex, and we cannot and should not rush to announce a scheme that gives rise to more questions than it answers. The Chancellor has held meetings this morning with representatives of the self-employed and will continue to meet them this afternoon.
It is important to remember that covid-19 is an urgent challenge to our entire economy, affecting workers of all types. It is essential that we respond swiftly, so that people can keep their jobs and businesses can carry on. That is the basis of our coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan. It is a plan that gives those on the frontline the tools they need to tackle the virus, with all the support the NHS needs, backed up by an initial £5 billion fund for public services. It is a plan that puts a shoulder behind business with a statutory sick pay relief package for small and medium-sized enterprises, business rates holidays for all retail hospitality, leisure and nursery businesses in England, and grant funding for small enterprises, as well as support through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ time to pay scheme. As of yesterday, businesses with cash-flow concerns are also able to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It might be easier if Members pass notes down the line, rather than going round and speaking to everybody.

Steve Barclay: The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, on which Members across the House have raised questions, is now available, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms, the Bank of England is providing a new facility to help support liquidity.
I urge all Members of the House to continue speaking—as I know many are doing—to the business leaders in their constituencies and ensure they are aware that they are not alone and that help is coming. In this House, we are all standing behind business and everyone who works in it. To encourage businesses to retain staff, we are deferring VAT, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced the job retention scheme to facilitate that.
Taken together, this is a huge programme of support, and we will keep thousands of workers in jobs, but we know that there are thousands of self-employed people who have been wondering what the future holds for them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already set out a range of measures in support. Sole traders and freelancers will be able to access the business interruption loan scheme as long as activity is channelled through a  business account. We are also removing the minimum income floor for the self-employed workers affected by coronavirus so that they too can access universal credit in full. That is not only the standard allowance, but a wider package of support for those with children, disabilities or, indeed, housing needs. At the same time, the next self-assessment income tax payments will be deferred until January 2021, helping those who have set money aside for those payments with immediate cash flow. That means there is a package on tax, on loans and, more widely, through universal credit, to support those with that safety net.
Let me reassure everyone in this House and the self-employed people they represent that further help is indeed coming, but we have to make sure we get this right and that we target the right support to those who are most in need. The Chancellor will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days.

Edward Davey: I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for that answer. He knows that parties on all sides of the House have been supportive of the way in which the Chancellor and the Treasury have given support to businesses and to employees. But I have to tell him that the 5 million self-employed people across the country, who are in all our constituencies, are in real stress and are deeply worried. While we all understand that there are complications, the Government have to move as fast as possible to meet their concerns, because they are literally, in many cases, simply running out of money.
I want to say to those on the Treasury Bench that it  is important we remember who the self-employed are: 80% of the 5 million self-employed are sole traders. They are our neighbours, our friends, our family. The vast majority are not wealthy people. They are cleaners, taxi drivers, plumbers, hairdressers; they are musicians, tutors, journalists; and they are builders, electricians and child minders. These people are literally running out of money now, and we have to support them.
Of course there will be stories about wealthy people who are self-employed, but they are the minority. If we look at the figures from HMRC’s own data, 36% of sole traders—the majority of the self-employed—have taxable incomes of less than £10,000 a year. That compares with just 15% of employees on incomes that low. We are talking about people on low incomes: 60% have profits of less than £10,000 a year. These people were struggling before the coronavirus pandemic, and they are now facing ruin.
I think that an urgent package of help is needed now, and it needs to be at least the equivalent of that offered to employees. While we all know the problems that the Treasury is facing, may I say to the Chief Secretary that if the package is capped as it was for employees, if it is temporary as it was for employees and, especially for the self-employed, if there is some sort of clawback mechanism if people are given money that they did not need, surely we can come together as a House and as a country to make sure these people get the support they need? It is not uncommon for the self-employed, when they do their annual self-assessment tax return, to have to pay money back to the Treasury. Surely, if money is given now so they can deal with cash flow—capped, in a temporary scheme—then that money can be clawed back the next time they do their self-assessment, if it turns out that they did not need it.
I honestly urge those on the Treasury Bench to move fast, and not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. People need the money now: please act now.

Steve Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of timing and speed in this regard. He spoke about how that can be targeted and the fact that there are many very deserving causes within the population, but it is probably useful to draw the House’s attention to the fact that one in 10 of those who are self-employed are over state pension age. Over two in 10, according to the 2017-18 figures, were earning less than £2,000, which suggests that it was not their main source of income. Between one and a half and two out of 10 are already on universal credit. Some remainders will be quite well paid, such as law partners and so on, and some will be in employment and returning self-employment tax forms for part of their income in addition to their employment. The point is that the population itself is complex and we need to ensure that the measures are targeted correctly.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the mechanism. One of the themes that has informed the Treasury’s approach is this: what is operationally deliverable? That is one of the things we are working through. For example, HMRC does not hold people’s bank accounts, which is why the support the package for those in employment was through the PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—system. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out at Treasury questions, tax data is one and a half years old. Those are the issues we are working through. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that urgency is important—that is why the Chancellor is engaged on this—but we are seeking to target a complex population.

Graham Brady: Recognising the complexity of solving this problem, can my right hon. Friend give some indication of how quickly we can expect to have at least an interim solution in place for those who are desperate for help and desperate for clarity at this point?

Steve Barclay: For some within this population—not all—there will be some solution already through the £5 million loan that is available as of yesterday. That will not cover the entirety of this population, but, in accordance with the business needs of some who are self-employed, there is support. For some of the population—again, by no means all—there will be some relief through some of the measures the Chancellor set out on property and business rate relief, but part of the complexity of the target population is that different measures work for different groups. That is part of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is working through, but I recognise the point my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and others have raised. We do recognise the importance of timing on this issue.

John Martin McDonnell: Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that no one is looking for a row over this? We are looking for a solution. The reason some Members became irritated earlier was the emphasis, in one of the Chancellor’s responses, on the rich self-employed. They  are not the people who are contacting us. The ones who are contacting me at the moment are the plumbers and the hairdressers. Yes, some freelance artists and others are in desperate straits, but I do not think there is a Member who has not received representations. We are just looking for something we can go back with today to give them some assurance. We know how complicated it is, but we have to find a solution quickly. I urge the Government to at least set a deadline, so we can go back to our members and say, “By the end of this week, there will be a proposal brought forward.”
The other assurance that people want was raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). If we can go back and say, “You will get the equivalent of the 80% or whatever that was offered to other workers,” it would lift people’s spirits that something was on the way.
Many self-employed workers, just like other workers, are having to sign themselves off sick. They do not have access to statutory sick pay—still. I have to say that asking people to survive on £94.25 a week is just an impossible ask. When the Secretary of State for Health was asked on television last week whether he could live on it, he said no. I agree with him. We need the level of sick pay raised for everybody if we are expecting them to choose not to work, and not have to choose between health and hardship.
Finally, in Treasury questions my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised a point about different categories of workers. I know that it is complicated, but we do have to consider agency workers. I have had many emails and telephone calls from people working in the construction sector who do not know whether they should be at work today, or whether they would be safe if they were. Let us use this opportunity to look at the exploitation by payroll companies and umbrella companies of people who in many instances are forcibly designated as self-employed.
We do not want a row over this; we want to work with the Government. In fact, Anneliese and I are happy to come and work a shift in the Treasury, if that is what Ministers want. [Interruption.] We might come up with slightly different solutions. We need this quickly and we need it to be effective as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am aiming for this to last until about 1.20 pm.

Steve Barclay: May I first welcome the constructive tone that the right hon. Gentleman has struck? His offer to come to the Treasury might contravene some of the recent social distancing requirements, but I appreciate the spirit in which it was made. He is right that we need to move at pace and to work together. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was involved in further meetings this morning, as he will be later today, as we work through how to take this forward.
The Chancellor was drawing attention to the complexity of the target population. I think that a number of Members would have concerns, not least as we look to the future, if we were subsidising some very wealthy self-employed people. I take the point that they are not  the ones getting in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is important that our approach is mindful of the target population.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of reassurance, which is a legitimate concern, and one shared across the House. I draw the attention of his constituents, and those of colleagues across the House, to the Chancellor’s comments this morning. We are working at pace on this and we recognise the issue being raised. I hope that provides reassurance, certainly in terms of an announcement, although the operation of any solution may take further time, as the Chancellor set out.
Considerable work is being done, but the population is complex. We are looking at the burdens of different delivery mechanisms, whether on the Department for Work and Pensions or local authorities, which have their own staffing pressures because of the number who are ill. That is why we are exercising flexibility in lots of other areas in order to reprioritise resources, but it is important that the scheme is deliverable and mindful of the other challenges we are dealing with.

Edward Leigh: May I make a point from a public accounts point of view by urging the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider a system that is humane, rapid and, above all, simple? The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have traditionally been obsessed with complexity, targeting and clawback, but what we need is a simple system. About 40 years ago I suggested having a universal basic income to Mrs Thatcher, and I got an earful for my pains. But we need something like that, which could be rolled out very simply and claimed by taxi drivers, cleaners and those sorts of people, because rich people would not bother with it. So just get on with it, make it simple and do it now.

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend wants us to get on with it. I refer him to the meetings and the considerable work being done to allow us to get on with it. As a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he well knows that many policy ideas start with the simple but then the devil is in the detail of delivery. I recall many an interview that he has given to draw attention to simple schemes that were then less simple in their delivery. It is worth bearing in mind that a small number of self-employed people—a very small proportion—might be doing quite well in the current climate, while many others are suffering, but that is not what we are focusing on now. The question that we are seeking to address is how we target our measures at those who are most deserving, which is what the attention of the House is focused on, and we need to ensure that the scheme that is brought forward does likewise.

Chris Stephens: Years ago, I read in the newspapers that there was a red Ed in the House of Commons; I did not realise that it was the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).
I, too, will try to strike a conciliatory tone in talking to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Obviously, there is very real concern. Like other hon. Members, I have been bombarded with emails from people who are self-employed. When this crisis is over, we should really sort out who is self-employed and who should be directly employed, but that is a debate for another time. Countries such as Norway, Denmark and Belgium have come up  with schemes for the self-employed; is he looking at those international examples? Surely what works in those countries can work in the UK. There are 330,000 self-employed workers in Scotland, working in areas such as the creative industries, agriculture, forestry, fishing, construction, and as taxi drivers. Are the Government looking at increasing weekly sick pay from £94.25 to the equivalent of a week’s pay at the real living wage? Are they considering removing the lower earnings limit for qualification for sick pay to ensure that everyone can access it? Are they looking at ending the five-week wait for universal credit, so that the first payment is a grant—a real payment—and not a loan?

Steve Barclay: On the issue of advance payments and universal credit, the Chancellor has increased the standard allowance. That is not the total quantum that people will get; I referred earlier to those with children, housing needs or a disability, who would get more. We have also made changes to access, so that people can get payment quickly, from day one, without face-to-face meetings. Concerns about subsequent repayments have often been raised in the House, but clearly, the £20 a week increase in universal credit that has been announced eases some of the repayment issues; it means that there is more in the allowance with which to address the issue of repayments. There has been a significant increase in universal credit, in part to address those issues. There is some operational complexity around a shift to a grant system because of the way that the universal credit IT system has been set up. We have sought to address the concern to which the hon. Gentleman refers through the increase, and of course an advance can still be offered.
Changes have been made to facilitate statutory sick pay being paid from day one, and changes have been made in respect of employers with 250 or fewer employees; the Chancellor set out measures to support those businesses with those costs.
The hon. Gentleman made a point relating to what I said about simplicity in a previous answer. Let me clarify the point that I was making. The vast majority of people who are self-employed are suffering; we recognise that. We are looking at how we can design a scheme that addresses the operational challenge that Members have spoken about.
Let me give an example. Part of the merit of the scheme that the Chancellor set out on furloughing members of staff, which is, I think, for many people a new concept, is that it gave clarity about delivery of the scheme. In answer to the previous question and the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are looking at what is operationally deliverable quickly; what recognises other challenges in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere; and what will not result in support going to a small proportion of people who should not be getting this targeted action, and instead allow us to focus it on the much larger cadre of people who deserve that help.

Robert Goodwill: In designing his scheme, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognise that many self-employed people in the tourism sector have very seasonal businesses, so using February, for example, as a reference month would not be appropriate? Will he see what can be done to help recreational charter fishermen, who, because they  pay harbour dues rather than business rates, have not been able to access the grant aid that their friends across the road from the harbour have been able to?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the challenge that emerged from some earlier questions: the simpler the scheme, the less it accommodates often legitimate and deserving issues that Members raise on behalf of their constituents. I am very happy to have further discussions with him, but he will recognise the tension between simplicity and addressing all the concerns that colleagues raise.

Bambos Charalambous: Two of my constituents are musicians. One is in an orchestra, and the other is a freelancer. One will get 80% of his income paid, and the other will be on statutory sick pay. Surely, it would be better to have a system where one wealthy freelancer benefits but 100 do not go hungry.

Steve Barclay: I refer to my earlier comments. We are trying to target the support towards those who are in need, in a way that is operationally as deliverable as possible, mindful of the issues that have been raised. We also want to accommodate the other point that colleagues from across the House have raised, namely that we must ensure that those who have legitimate needs are not excluded from the measures.

Julian Lewis: Will Ministers consider suspending the application of the loan charge for the period of this emergency, thus stopping the hounding of the self-employed people who were the subject of an important debate in this place last week?

Steve Barclay: I can provide a degree of reassurance to my right hon. Friend that the self-assessment has been deferred from July to August. That is one of the areas where the Chancellor has taken action to address concerns.

Matt Western: Many of us, up and down the country, depend on sole traders for jobs around the house. People in many communities that experienced flooding are expecting others to come to their homes and do work for them. How on earth are those households supposed to say, “We cannot have you helping us out and repairing our homes?” They are desperate for plumbers, electricians and so on. Those electricians, those plumbers and the owners of those properties want to do the right thing. What is the advice of the Government?

Steve Barclay: Without straying into individual cases, the key advice from the Government is to follow the medical advice that was set out following the Prime Minister’s statement and updated on the Government website. That sets out the advice to workers, including what is safe to do and what is essential.

Bim Afolami: In its unprecedented support for employed workers, the Treasury took a fairly generous overarching approach. I urge the Treasury—I am not the only one saying this; it represents  the mood across the House—to take a similarly broad approach to benefit the majority of self-employed people who will need support, accepting that certain people may get support even if they do not quite need it.

Steve Barclay: The Treasury is looking at those issues in the design of the scheme. We recognise that the vast majority of self-employed people face very considerable challenges, and we are mindful of the urgency that goes with that.

Ben Lake: More than 400 self-employed sole traders and freelancers have contacted me over the past 24 hours, and many of them have already lost their work because of this crisis. As well as echoing others’ calls to introduce support for them as soon as possible, can I ask the Minister to ensure that such measures are backdated, as in the job retention scheme, to help to address the disruption that has already been caused by the covid-19 epidemic?

Steve Barclay: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about backdating. The Treasury has brought forward a range of measures, and one of the challenges to date has been that it is not always understood what has been announced and what is already available. I draw attention to the fact that we are deferring income tax self-assessments, which will not need to be paid until January; we are supporting people through the welfare system with the measures that I announced earlier, including on contributory ESA; we are increasing universal credit and working tax credit by £1,000; we are suspending the minimum income floor for 12 months; we are increasing a three-month mortgage holiday for those in difficulty; the self-employed will be eligible to receive support with their tax affairs through time to pay; the business interruption loan scheme will be available for some self-employed individuals, up to the £5 million limit; and we have delayed IR35. Members of the House can assist our small business community, and particularly the self-employed, by drawing attention to the measures that have been announced. We in Government also stand ready to do that through a comms campaign.

Nusrat Ghani: I know that my right hon. Friend is working night and day to help businesses, and to help people stay in work. I am incredibly grateful for all the support he has given me as I respond to the self-employed in Wealden. The decision to take out a loan is proving to be quite an anxious one for the self-employed, if that is the only thing on the table. I will read out an email from Anna, a self-employed wedding photographer who has had to give up work, and who is going to try to find work elsewhere:
“I am loath to take any…loans offered, as there is no guarantee that future work will be able to take place because we have no idea how long this pandemic will last.”
I ask my right hon. Friend to take into account Anna’s dilemma before making any announcement concerning the self-employed.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pressure
and decisions that Anna and so many self-employed people are facing at this time. I draw attention to the fact that the loans are interest-free for 12 months. One  of the key themes we are very conscious of is that it is a health emergency that is impacting on our economy. These were viable businesses before that health emergency arose, and they will be viable businesses after we have overcome it. The question is, how do we bridge the gap? How do we support Anna and others through this period? The interest-free loans are not the only measure; I have just drawn the House’s attention to other measures that are available, and I urge Anna and others to take advantage of them.

Siobhain McDonagh: I appreciate the difficulties in coming up with these arrangements, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that small traders are simply applying for universal credit, blocking up the universal credit system, because they are desperate for money from somewhere. That is causing a problem for the Department for Work and Pensions, so delay does not get the problem to go away. People do not wait; they just try to find something else, which causes a knock-on problem.

Steve Barclay: I accept the concern the hon. Lady raises, but I think she would equally accept that this is an unprecedented challenge and that staff in the DWP and elsewhere are working heroically to address the increased volumes. The best way for all of us to address this issue is through wider support for the economy as a whole. That is what was behind, first, the £30 billion of fiscal measures announced by the Chancellor at the Budget; the further announcement of the £350 billion, including £330 billion of loans, and the wider package last Tuesday; and the further measures announced by the Chancellor on Friday. That is on top of the measures the Bank of England has taken—for example, reducing base rates, and the £200 billion of bonds. A range of measures have been taken to support the economy and to reduce that blockage, but I absolutely accept that the numbers have increased, and we are reprioritising work in the DWP to assist with that.

Andrew Griffith: My rural constituency has one of the highest concentrations of self-employed people in the country, so while I and other Conservative Members thank my right hon. Friend for the timely and unprecedented measures he has come forward with, I add my voice to the growing consensus across the House for measures to be extended to the self-employed.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable business and financial experience, and he will know the cash-flow issues and the challenges that many of the businesses in his constituency face. We absolutely hear his message, just as we do the message from Members across the House, and that is why we are moving at pace to address them.

Gavin Newlands: Further to the point I raised at Treasury questions, which was echoed by the shadow Chancellor, the newly under-employed must be supported further. One of my constituents is a self-employed taxi driver with no work, due to the lockdown. His wife and four children have underlying health conditions. Any universal credit application would mean their tax credit ceasing. A jobseeker’s allowance application would mean having to prove that they are seeking work and engaging with  their accountant. Will the Chief Secretary tell them how they can possibly put food on the table and pay their bills?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman speaks to a real concern and a real issue, but I draw attention to the fact that one of the challenges is to communicate what support has already been announced by the Chancellor. To give an example, a family renting in Sheffield with two children would be eligible for around £1,750 a month in support—far more than the £94 per week, if we take account of additional things such as housing and children’s support. It is about what package of support is available, and the Chancellor has already announced considerable measures in that regard.

Mark Harper: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said. He acknowledged that the vast majority of self-employed people were being impacted. If he makes sure that whatever help is given is taxable, we can claw back any money that is overpaid to those who are doing well. However, what self-employed people are looking for is a clear commitment today that whatever scheme is set out is of a similar magnitude to that for employed workers. If the Chief Secretary can say that, it will give people confidence to borrow, knowing that they can pay the money back. That will go a long way towards solving the problem.

Steve Barclay: As I have said, the Chancellor held meetings with small business leaders this morning. He is having further meetings on this issue today. He is very aware of the concerns raised by my right hon Friend and other Members, and we continue to work at pace on this issue.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here, but may I ask the Minister to pass on to him that the self-employed people contacting me are not wealthy individuals? They are individuals such as Andrew Brown, who I raised last week—a self-employed graphic designer whose income has disappeared. They are taxi drivers. They are small catering companies. Unless action is taken now for these individuals, not just to relieve the hardship they are facing, their businesses will no longer be in existence. My fear is that we will generate unemployment among these people for a long time to come.

Steve Barclay: I agree with the first part of that. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the vast majority of these people. I have made that point repeatedly. I referred earlier to the fact that the target population has different elements, but the vast majority of those who are self-employed face enormous challenges. We absolutely hear that, and I accept that. On his second point, we have taken a number of measures, but we recognise that more is needed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is meeting leaders on this issue today to look at what further measures we can bring forward.

Steve Brine: May I say that I do understand that this is difficult? If it were easy, the Chancellor would have announced it last Friday with the rest of the package. The self-employed people I represent just want a sign; they just want some hope  and an indication. I think they have had that today from the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, but may I make a suggestion? For self-employed people and all other people right now, if they cannot get the same in, they have to send less out. The Government worked magic last week with the mortgage companies, which seem to be falling over themselves to offer mortgage holidays, but all the other fixed costs that our constituents face—utilities; insurance premiums; car finance; council tax bills, which landed on the doorstep last week; and even, for some, a business improvement district levy due next week—are still there. I wonder whether there is something the Minister can take back to the Treasury, perhaps with help from the shadow Chancellor, on those sorts of fixed costs, because they are dragging people down at a time when they have a lot less coming in.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right that there is a range of costs. As I say, we are looking as part of our support at what action can be taken. He can see, as an illustration of that, the action that has been taken on mortgages and in support of renters—both for mortgage holders directly and in terms of the buy-to-let market. Measures have been taken, but we stand ready to look at further measures.

Caroline Lucas: The local economy in Brighton and Hove is overwhelmingly dependent on the self-employed, so I cannot overstate how urgent it is that we have action on this. I do not know whether the Minister gave a deadline when he spoke to his colleague earlier, but if he did not, will he please tell us that we will have action by the end of the week? Universal credit is not a fair option for many freelancers, because it means they have to delve into savings that they have put aside because they do not have pensions. We are going to push them into greater insecurity right now if we cause them to have to rely on that instead.

Steve Barclay: As I said in my opening statement, the Chancellor is meeting on this today and we hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days.

Jason McCartney: I welcome that the Treasury is working hard on supporting the self-employed. We must remember that these are local freelancers. They are mobile hairdressers, childminders, freelance driving instructors, photographers, musicians, IT consultants and home-based travel agents. They have lost all their income. Can the Minister confirm that the package for the self-employed, freelancers and sole traders will be announced by the end of the week?

Steve Barclay: I refer to the answer I gave a moment ago. We are actively looking at this and we hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days.

Bill Esterson: The way around the problem that the Minister, and the Chancellor before him, identified of giving money to people who do not need it was given to him by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). The money can be recovered later. Do not let that concern about a handful of people get in the way of putting the scheme in place and deny desperate people, who cannot put food on the table, money they need right now.

Steve Barclay: As the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question in Treasury questions suggested, that is not the sole consideration. It is a question of what the operational delivery issues may be: for example, we do not hold details of people’s bank accounts, so how would we do it? It is how we roll this out, but we recognise his wider point that there are immediate issues for many self-employed people. That is what we are actively working on, and that is what my right hon Friend the Chancellor is engaged on in further meetings today. As I said in my previous answer, we hope to bring proposals forward in the coming days.

Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the business interruption loan scheme. Will he confirm that all self-employed people will have access to it and that they will not have to give personal guarantees? Will the Government widen the scheme to include institutions such as OakNorth and Aldermore, which are currently excluded from eligibility?

Steve Barclay: We are looking into that, but it is available as of now. It goes up to £5 million and my understanding is that it does not require personal guarantees. If it is any different, I will come back to him on that point.

Wendy Chamberlain: A constituent in East Fife runs a mobile catering business, providing a service to both private and public events such as festivals. Having no fixed premises means that they will not benefit from the support announced so far, and the relaxation of planning rules that other food outlets can benefit from to do home deliveries is also an issue. They are also struggling, like many others, to access business interruption insurance. The independent mobile catering sector could be utilised to support and provide sustenance for our key workers. What amendments to the measures will the Chief Secretary consider to support that critical sector?

Steve Barclay: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at a range of options in terms of how we adapt to the change of circumstances. For example, many pubs and restaurants had significant food orders, so we are looking at what can be done there. There is food that would have been exported previously, but that may now be difficult, so there is a range of measures in terms of the food supply within which mobile caterers will have a role. I know that my right hon. Friend is looking at those issues.

Bob Blackman: In my constituency I have a large number of families where one partner works in the national health service and the other is self-employed. The children have been sent home from school and there is no one to look after them, because if the self-employed parent does not work, they do not get paid. Can my right hon. Friend look urgently at a scheme? Also and specifically, council tax bills are due on 1 April—next week—and people are worried, particularly in London, about how they will be able to pay. Can council tax bills be suspended?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend will recall that the Budget included targeted action specifically on council tax, with a £0.5 billion package to allow targeted support on council tax. I think he is drawing his attention to a slightly wider issue of concern, particularly where one member of a household works in the NHS as a key worker and one is at home, but of course that draws attention to the fact that this is a complex scheme that we are seeking to design. Those are the sort of issues we are working through.

Wes Streeting: I have so many self-employed workers in my constituency, including more than 1,000 taxi and private hire drivers. They will understand from what has been said this morning that the Government have good intentions, but they will respond to me that good intentions do not pay their bills. Given that there will be a lag with the new system coming in, what more can the Government do in the meantime, through offsetting tax bills and also encouraging banks to be more generous with free overdraft facilities to help families through this? Let us not forget that we all bailed out the banks when they needed it, so maybe it is time for them to do something now.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman is right in terms of the role of the banks, and a clear message has been sent by the Bank of England Governor about the importance of banks showing forbearance at this time. That applies to things such as credit card debts, but also he will be aware that, for example, for many of his constituents in a London constituency, their rent is a significant issue, as well as the measures we have taken on mortgages. We have looked at what we can do to assist on some of those fixed costs, but the banks have had a clear message from the Governor about the need to show forbearance.

Richard Drax: I commend those on the Treasury Bench for the calm way they are dealing with this unprecedented situation, but clearly something needs to be done for the self-employed. One of my constituents has made three points. First, they will be disadvantaged because they will not get the topping up that an employer might give an employee. Secondly, there will not necessarily be an immediate return to work, and finally seasonality may affect their income, which of course it would not for an employee. Will those three very good points be taken into account by those on the Treasury Bench?

Steve Barclay: They are good points, and again they draw attention to the conflict between simplicity and addressing the various specific issues that Members have raised. One of those is seasonality, which obviously has an impact. That is why the design of the scheme is more complex than perhaps meets the eye, but we are looking at the issues and we intend to bring forward proposals in the coming days.

Owen Thompson: Like many other Members, I have been contacted by many self-employed people in my constituency who are welcoming of the support already offered, but in need of the absolute guarantee about what is still to come and quickly. Going into the shop to buy essential groceries for feeding their family and telling the checkout supervisor  that the Chancellor says that they can pay for it soon is not going to get them their shopping, so how soon can we give that certainty?

Steve Barclay: We hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days. I absolutely appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman is quite rightly raising for his constituents. This does not address his specific question but, in part, that is why we have been strengthening the safety net of the welfare system, and why the main measures we have taken are to support the economy as a whole. That is the best way to get viable businesses, including the self-employed, back and earning money once we have dealt with the health emergency. We are looking at the specific issue of the self-employed, and we intend to bring forward proposals in the coming days.

Steve Double: While many of our supermarket shelves are empty at times, a food source currently going to waste is fish. Most of our fishermen are self-employed, but they have seen their markets collapse, because pubs and restaurants are closed and overseas markets are closed to them. Will we look for a bespoke package to support our fishermen through this time and, in particular, to find ways to get their fish sold to people who could buy it to feed their families?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is aware of. I am sure that he will be happy to have further discussions with him in the coming days. My hon. Friend is right, the pub and restaurant trade having collapsed, there is not only food that would have been provided to them, but capacity in our fishing catch, because of the quota rules.

Kevin Brennan: I know that the Minister has been sent out with a new three-word slogan from the Government’s three-word slogan unit, namely, “Help is coming”, but may I remind him that the previous one was, “Whatever it takes”? That is what the Government pledged, and it should apply to self-employed people too. He just said that, in the coming days, there will be some further clarity. There is fear across the House that we might not sit next week, and that the Government may be getting to the point where they do not have to come back to the House to account for what they are doing for the self-employed. What assurance will he give us that whatever “Help is coming”, it will constitute “Whatever it takes” and will be equivalent to what is being offered to employed people?

Steve Barclay: I am very happy to make it a six-word slogan, if the hon. Gentleman prefers: “Help is coming”, and we will do, “Whatever it takes”. As to whether the House will sit, that is not an issue for the Government, as he well knows as an experienced Member of the House. Whether the House sits—whether Ministers are called to answer questions—is a matter for the Chair, and not for Ministers. In fact, we had an urgent question last week, and we have one here, so that suggests that Mr Speaker is keen to ensure, quite properly, that Ministers are held to account.

Caroline Nokes: Many self-employed have already taken the right decision and socially distanced themselves—the hairdressers who have not gone into care homes, the taxi drivers, the  driving instructors—but they are looking for some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that they have done the right thing and will not be penalised for it.

Steve Barclay: Again, that is quite right in terms of the self-employed, which includes many hairdressers, but my right hon. Friend will also be aware of measures we have already taken—they will support many hairdressing businesses—such as the business rate relief and the grants. The £10,000 grants targeted at the 700,000 smaller businesses are, again, part of the package of measures to apply to some of that population. However, it is clear from many of the questions that populations are not tightly set, and that there is a degree of overlap and underlap, which is what we are working through.

Jim Shannon: Many farmers are self-employed, often on family farms, with a husband and wife team, or a son or daughter. The Minister and others in the House will know that lambing is taking place now, and the first lambs will be sold in July, but the prices for lambs and beef cattle are the lowest they have ever been. What help will the Minister and Government give to farmers who face financial ruin at this time?

Steve Barclay: As I see from the farmers in my own constituency, there is considerable demand from for UK-produced food. I am very happy to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman, and we have often had conversations about farming issues in the past. I am happy to continue those conversations, alongside those with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about how we support our farmers, but I think their products will be in great demand moving forward.

Andrew Murrison: May we please have further clarity on how builders, plumbers, electricians and plasterers should be conducting themselves at work or, indeed, whether they should be at work at all? There seems to be some confusion as to whether they should be on site or in premises. A leading builders merchant contacted me this morning to say that it had to shut up shop because it feared that the collection of the builders outside its premises were failing to socially isolate, and it was concerned about what that would mean. It seems that there has been some confusion over the past 24 hours, so I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the advice for those crucial people.

Steve Barclay: I am very happy to draw my right hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care so that precise medical guidance can be given to address the concern he raises.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sorry that we have to come to an end. There will be disappointment, but if we had helped each other, nobody would have missed out.

British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home

Caroline Nokes: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what measures he plans to introduce to assist British citizens abroad to return home.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. We have FCO staff in all our 280 posts in 168 countries and 10 overseas territories, and they are working round the clock to respond to this global pandemic. Over the last three days, we have seen 80 countries place restrictions on their borders. That situation is unprecedented in scale, and our overriding priority now is to assist the thousands of British travellers who need and want to return home, bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of UK nationals who may be travelling at any point in time.
Following last week’s decision to advise against all but essential travel globally, last night I changed our travel advice again because of the rate of new border restrictions. We strongly advise British people who are currently travelling abroad who live in the UK to return as soon as possible, where they are still able to because commercial routes are still running. Where commercial options are limited or prevented by domestic restrictions, we are in close contact with the airlines and local authorities in those countries to overcome those barriers to enable people to return home. With my ministerial team, and indeed across the diplomatic network, we are engaging with numerous Governments to keep commercial routes open, particularly in transit hubs. The Department for Transport is working closely with airlines to ensure that travellers can rebook or find alternative routes home.
I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have had constituents contact them in relation to particular countries, so with your forbearance, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on just a few of those countries. I spoke to the Peruvian Foreign Minister at the weekend, and we have agreed special arrangements for flights to return British nationals later this week and for Peruvian nationals to get back to Peru. I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister this morning, and we have agreed to work together to help those stranded to get back to their homes in the UK. Given Singapore’s role as a transit hub, this commitment to work with us to enable UK nationals to transit via Singapore is particularly important, not least for those currently in Australia or New Zealand. In New Zealand, the high commission is working with airlines, airports and, indeed, the Government to keep flight routes open and to reopen some that have closed. In Australia, the high commission is doing the same. It has also opened a register of British nationals hoping to return to the UK and is supporting British nationals via phone calls and walk-in appointments at the high commission, as well as updating social media pages.
For those trying to get home in other countries, we are providing as much practical advice as is physically possible. We would first advise all travellers to take a  look at the travel advice online, which is the best and most comprehensive source of information and is updated in real time. If people are in need of urgent assistance, they should call our embassies and high commissions. They will be automatically connected to our consular contact centres, the global centres based in Malaga and Ottawa—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) will allow me. We know that there has been considerable pressure because of the restrictions being placed in countries around the world and the rate at which that has been done, with either limited or no notice. We doubled our capacity. We are now doubling it again to deal with the surge in demand. We are helping to reduce travel costs by encouraging airlines to have maximum flexibility on changing return tickets. Where people are in real need, our consular teams will work with them to consider their options. As a last resort, we offer an emergency loan.
More broadly, the United Kingdom is working alongside our international partners to deliver our international strategy, which rests on four key tenets: to provide resilience to the most vulnerable countries; to pursue a vaccine; to keep vital trade routes and supply chains for foodstuff, medicines and other things open; and to provide reciprocal support for the return of our nationals who otherwise are at risk of being stranded. These are the right priorities. We are working day and night to keep British people safe at home and abroad.

Caroline Nokes: There is an MPs’ helpline that rings with no answer. Emails are acknowledged but not replied to. Embassies are closed, with staff flown home days ago and doors shut to our travellers. Guidance was issued by the Foreign Office yesterday advising British tourists to return to the UK where commercial flights are available, but they are not available. They are either banned entirely, are trying to transit via countries where no layovers are permitted, or are priced at tens of thousands of pounds and via airports that are expected to close imminently.
What help exactly is my right hon. Friend’s global network offering? He knows that the situation is dire, but he knew that last week when he stated in this House that
“we will look and liaise with the airline operators…to make sure that, where there are gaps, we can always provide as much support as possible for vulnerable or stranded constituents.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 809.]
There are gaps. My constituents stranded in Argentina, Honduras, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand, India, Peru and Egypt have much in common: an inability to get through to consular services on the phone, a standard acknowledgement email telling them to contact their tour operator, airline or insurer, and an increasing inability to find accommodation. Hotels are shutting, flights are cancelled, borders are closed and there are no routes home. Many are hours away from large airports in countries operating curfews. Those in Australia and New Zealand are looking for routes via Singapore, so I welcome the comments my right hon. Friend made about working with Singaporean allies, but to them, it looks like his words of last week were empty. I ask him today, as I asked him last week, to explain how he is working with airlines with unused planes parked at airports around the globe to bring our people home. He  must get the process fully under way. The vision of British citizens sleeping rough on the streets of Caracas is not a good one.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. In relation to embassies, she said that they have been closed, but actually, a very small number of posts have had to be closed. What we have found—this is not a choice that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made; it is a direct result of the restrictions that have been put in place by Governments in those countries—is that they have had to work remotely, and indeed, a large chunk of the consular staff work from home. That is not a decision that we made—it was forced upon us—but I reassure her that in all the jurisdictions that she mentioned, we are trying to respond to what I hope she will understand, given her experience, is an incredibly fluid situation. Some of these restrictions are being imposed with no notice or limited notice, and that is very difficult, of course, for our constituents, but we are making sure that we provide them with as much advice and support in real time as we can.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Peru. As a result of the work of the FCO, and having spoken to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, we now have agreement for flights to come out of Peru. There is, of course, a challenge because not everyone is based in Lima, which has the international airport, so we also have to try to work out how we get UK nationals travelling in more remote parts of the country to the capital. We are actively working on that. We have several flights lined up, but we also need to work around or try to overcome the restrictions that have been imposed.
I hope I have explained what we are doing in Australia and New Zealand. My right hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for her remarks, about the critical importance of keeping the international hubs open, and not just in relation to Singapore. We are concerned about other international hub airports. We must try to keep those open. Tomorrow, I will lead the discussion among the G7 Foreign Ministers on this and our wider international strategy for tackling coronavirus. This is extremely difficult. We have hundreds of thousands of British nationals abroad, but I can reassure her that, from the call centre to the support they are receiving at post, we are doing everything we can to give them as much support as swiftly as possible.

Barry Gardiner: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing it. This is a medical crisis, not a wartime one, but she certainly gave the Foreign Secretary some friendly fire, and she spoke for us all in the concerns she expressed for the hundreds of thousands of British nationals stranded overseas.
Since the House last discussed these issues, we have seen some progress, especially in the planned provision of repatriation flights for British nationals stranded in Peru, and I thank the Foreign Office for its work on that, but as today’s media coverage shows—indeed, as is shown by the dozens of emails, calls and letters that Members from all parties are receiving from Indonesia, New Zealand, Morocco and Pakistan, where I understand no outbound flights are now available—this is not a crisis that can be resolved one traveller, one airline, or  indeed one country at a time. It is a crisis affecting British nationals in every continent, many of them accompanied by young children, many of them with worsening health conditions, and many of them running out of money and in danger of losing their accommodation.
They are all in desperate need of reassurance from the Government, so I hope the Secretary of State will take the chance today to clarify the statement he made yesterday, which was reported across the media as an instruction to British nationals abroad—indeed, this is a direct quote from him—to
“come home…now while you still can.”
Despite the headlines, the Secretary of State obviously meant that for individuals who have the option of taking a commercial flight to Britain, but does he accept that that is now very much the exception, not the norm, and that for hundreds of thousands of British nationals the option he highlighted is simply no option at all? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Government remain committed to helping all British nationals; that embassies will have telephone lines available so that they can get the support and advice that they need, whenever they need it; that the Government will find a flight to get them home, no matter how long it takes; and that they will be guaranteed continued accommodation in the meantime?
Does the Secretary of State have a plan to ensure the safe care and medical assessment of British cruise line passengers and their current health assessment? Is he negotiating with countries to ensure their safety during quarantine? Is he arranging safe travel home for all who are stranded? How is he keeping in touch with worried citizens abroad and their families here in the UK?
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his foreign counterparts about the extension of visas, which may expire during the lockdown in other countries? What action is he taking on airlines to stop the profiteering that is going on, with inflated prices for flights home? In other words, will he send a simple message to those British nationals stranded overseas: “You are not in the last chance saloon; you are in safe hands, and this Government will get you home”?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and we certainly want to give as much reassurance and as much advice as possible, but he will know—he has worked on the international brief for a while—that we have in this country a great tradition of travelling abroad, and that even if we take expats out of the equation we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people at any one time. Given the national restrictions that are being imposed, at pace and sometimes without notice, it is very difficult to give cast-iron guarantees about the situation. What we can do is lead internationally, in the way I described, with the G7, which we are doing tomorrow, and work as hard as we can with all our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the progress in securing the return home of UK nationals; I can tell him that we have already repatriated more than 1,000 British nationals, and also 254 non-British nationals, where we have had capacity, from 26 countries—places as far-flung as Wuhan over to Cuba.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Morocco in particular. We have facilitated the return of thousands of British nationals via commercial routes, with 49 commercial flights bringing 8,500 passengers home—in fact, it is even more than that now.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we cannot do it alone, which is why I am spending any moment that I am not in this House talking to Members hitting the phones, talking to Foreign Ministers and working our way through the problems. We have talked to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, as I mentioned, and I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister first thing this morning.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of accommodation, because where people are travelling for two to three weeks, that is ultimately the issue for them. In Spain, where a large number of Britain nationals are holidaying, the original Government decision in Madrid was to close all hotels today. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Spain and we secured the flexibility whereby they would not be kicked out on to the streets, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We have also secured flexibility to ensure that the airlines can come in and, given the large number of Brits in Spain, we can secure those flights home. On the detail of the travel advice to which he referred, we have given that advice based on the rapid rate of new restrictions that Governments and jurisdictions are placing, sometimes on internal travel, which will inhibit people’s ability to get to the airport, but more often on external flights coming in and out.
The hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about cruise ships. To the best of my understanding, on the basis of advice from the Department for Transport, no further cruise ships are hitting the water, so we are dealing with the stock of existing ships. We have successfully returned 684 people, including 669 British nationals, from the Braemar cruise ship, which was in the Caribbean, struggling to find a port of entry. We did that via Cuba. That is a good example of reaching out to—[Interruption.] I thought that would get the Leader of the Opposition excited.

Jeremy Corbyn: You did say it.

Dominic Raab: I am happy to say that we work with all our partners across the world; we would not allow dogma to get in the way of securing the rights of British nationals. I am proud that we have that flexibility and I am grateful to the Cuban Foreign Minister for arranging it. We also had close to 3,000 British nationals on the Azura, docked in Bridgetown, and they arrived back in the UK over the weekend without incident. We had 355 British nationals on the Norwegian Spirit, and they took a flight back to the UK on 23 March. That is the progress we have made, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight cruise ships that were travelling after we changed the travel advice for such ships. We have a specific eye and focus on making sure that Brits on board those cruise ships get back safe and sound.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me help the House by saying that I am thinking of running this until 2.15 pm.

Stephen Crabb: I thank my right hon. Friend for the progress he has announced on the Peru cases, and thank him and his team for the   discussions we had last week about the need for a repatriation plan for my young constituents who have been stranded there. Given that so many of us across the House have numerous constituents stranded in different countries and given the problems they are all facing in getting timely, correct information from embassies and consulates, will he impress on all the ambassadors and high commissioners in these countries that we expect them to be leading the effort? We understand the constraints that the embassy staff are under in these countries, but we are expecting the people at the top of these organisations to be leading from the front and helping to put together plans for all British citizens stranded overseas.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. He is absolutely right in what he says. I can reassure him that every one of our networks takes this incredibly seriously. The ambassadors and high commissioners are apprised of their leadership role in securing the return of UK nationals or otherwise protecting them as best we can. I say honestly to the House that there has been a challenge because of the spike in calls—I have been absolutely straightforward with the House on that—and we have doubled the capacity and we are looking to double it again. We want to make sure that that first point of contact—the pastoral care that the consular officers provide—is there, and then further detail, the technical advice, can be provided. He mentioned Peru and I can tell him that the first flight has capacity for about 200 passengers. Obviously we would want to prioritise the most vulnerable. He mentioned his constituents. We will have a final manifest shortly, before the flight departs tomorrow. Given the numbers in Peru and, as I mentioned, the issue of the remoteness of some of them from Lima, the capital, and the airport, we are, of course, going to have more flights. We hope to confirm the details of all that in due course. I can also tell him that 1,000 UK nationals have registered with our embassy in Lima, so although there is this idea that we have not got a system in place in Peru, we have actually responded very swiftly.

Gavin Newlands: Since the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) left Government, I find myself agreeing with her on a regular basis, and I commend her for securing this urgent question.
As with everything else at the moment, I appreciate that this is a challenging and fast-moving situation, but we all have constituents stranded abroad who are worried sick about being able to get home, many of whom have no further funds to support their continued stay if that were to prove impossible. Many of us have constituents stranded in Peru, and I am grateful for the Government’s commitment on that. I have constituents stranded in Australia and New Zealand who have made every effort, as the Foreign Secretary has asked, to get home but have been blocked by cancelled flights, internal travel restrictions and international travel bans. Two of them are NHS doctors, and some of them have health issues, including asthma and a chronic respiratory condition, and are running low on medicines. I am sorry to say this, because I know that the service is hard-pressed,  as the Foreign Secretary outlined, but they have all  been particularly scathing about the lack of consular support available.
Can the FCO commit to providing clarity about the situation directly to UK citizens abroad who are worried and isolated, and about support for returning home, or support from UK embassies to get accommodation and access to healthcare that they need, should that not be possible? I strongly urge the Foreign Secretary to support citizens to get home, whatever it takes. In addition to our own citizens, will he commit to ensuring that all foreign nationals living in the UK will be treated with compassion and flexibility should they find themselves in need of essential treatment and care in this country, particularly if they are not able to imminently return home? Will he pass on the Government’s support to concerned embassies that are trying to look out for their citizens?

Dominic Raab: The first thing to say is that we have all had constituents contact us to say that they feel vulnerable or are stranded, and I think we all understand how anxious people are in that situation. The No. 1 thing we want to do is provide some certainty. That starts with the point of contact, which is why I mentioned the call centre. It also relates to the missions. There have been some mistaken, if not outright flawed, suggestions that embassies or high commissions have closed. The buildings may have been restricted because of the measures taken by domestic Governments and local authorities, but those embassies and missions—with a very small number of exceptions, all of which are subsidiary missions —are all open for business, with people having to work remotely.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of flights. We are working closely with airlines and travel companies to ensure that as many people as possible can get commercial flights home in a rapidly changing and fluid situation, and we are encouraging airlines to be as flexible as possible when people have to change their return flight.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Australia and New Zealand. I have set out in some detail the support that is being provided, but given the new restrictions that the Governments have introduced and the question hanging over transit hubs, I appreciate that there is acute concern for people there. We have had to rapidly respond to that. I have given information to the House on what Australia is doing. The high commission is open. UK nationals abroad can call the embassy or register their details. I have an email here about how that can be done, which I can give to Members on both sides of the House. I can tell the House that more than 1,700 British nationals have registered their interest. In relation to New Zealand, in addition to the work being done, we are—as I think I mentioned in my opening remarks—working to find accommodation for those who want to know that they at least have a place to stay, if they cannot get a commercial flight out.

Henry Smith: I have a number of constituents who are key workers, including in the NHS. What specific support can the Foreign Office offer to ensure that those individuals can come back, so that they can support the efforts against covid-19?

Dominic Raab: We are providing support right across the board. If there are key workers abroad, that just highlights the imperative of getting people back. I have  to say to my hon. Friend that we are prioritising the most vulnerable, but where we can get commercial flights out of those jurisdictions, we are looking to have enough capacity to get all of them out. I hope that that provides him and his constituents with some reassurance.

Chris Elmore: I understand what the Foreign Secretary is saying about embassies and consulates being open, but the reality is that, when constituents are calling and calling and getting no answer, they assume they are not open because they cannot get any response. May I raise Bali in particular? British news reports that 150-odd British nationals are stuck at the airport after Emirates cancelled flights and said they would have to stay in Bali for three months. I tried to raise that on the Foreign Office line and the covid-19 line. The covid-19 line said nothing could be done and those people would have to remain in Bali. Surely the Foreign Secretary could think about commissioning a repatriation flight for all those British nationals stuck in Bali, including two of my constituents.

Dominic Raab: I am very concerned about the situation in Bali. The embassy office in Bali is open and has been reinforced from Jakarta. The consular team is in direct contact with UK nationals there. Flight options have obviously been curtailed in the way the hon. Member described. The Emirates route is closed, but operational routes are still available via Jakarta.
There are something like 6,000 British nationals in Bali—that is an estimate—and in fairness 2,000 of them are long-term residents. We are working with London, Gulf posts and the transit hubs in the way I described to try to free up many of those links to enable those people to get home.

Andrew Rosindell: The Foreign Secretary is making efforts to rescue people abroad and bring them home, but is he aware that many high commissions and embassies are simply not responding to British people in desperate need of help? The British Government have an absolute duty to deal with that without delay. Will he please use all the Foreign Office’s staff to ensure that they are there to look after people in their hour of need?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend and give him this reassurance. There are only three posts that we have drawn down in their entirety: Wuhan and Chongqing in China, which are subsidiary posts, so they can be backed up from Beijing; N’Djamena in Chad; and Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That was done as a last resort, thinking about the situation there. We are ensuring that, in those jurisdictions I described where Governments have taken action, we have as much capacity, albeit working remotely. We have doubled call centre capacity and we are looking at doubling it again. I hope I can reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that constituents of all Members on both sides of the House have a point of contact. Again, I stress that posts and the Foreign Office network are trying to deal with an unprecedented situation in terms of scale and the rapidity with which restrictions are being imposed.

Ben Bradshaw: As others have said, the reality on the ground does not correspond to the picture being painted by the Foreign Secretary. I have constituents stuck abroad and I am particularly worried for David and Ann Watts, who are stuck in the Dominican Republic after British Airways cancelled their flight. He has serious health conditions and has run out of medication. Flights are available from the Dominican Republic to European Union destinations, but they have been told at the airport that there is no guarantee they will be accepted into those countries, which is not my understanding of the situation. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to other European Governments and to the airlines concerned to make it clear that we should be mutually supporting each other to repatriate our citizens from wherever they are?

Dominic Raab: We are regularly talking to European Governments and I am speaking to my opposite numbers in Europe and across the world on a regular basis. I will look into the case of the Dominican Republic. Of course, it is less well travelled than some of the other routes, which is part of the challenge, but that just means we need to redouble our efforts.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the fact that we will not get the hundreds of thousands of Brits stuck abroad back home by just lobbying airlines or engaging unilaterally on actions that we can control. I reassure him that I will lead the conversation on behalf of the UK at the G7 meeting, which will take place tomorrow remotely through virtual media, and that the four prongs of the strategy are: helping the most vulnerable countries; pursuing a vaccine; dealing with the economic response; and, critically, ensuring that we improve international collaboration on returning our nationals. That is true for me, as it is for the Peruvian Foreign Minister—we talked about Peruvian nationals here who want to get back home. We must ensure that we keep vital air links and, in particular, regional and international hubs open to drive that effort forward. I will lead the conversation for the UK in the G7 tomorrow.

Alicia Kearns: It is important that we put on record the enormous thanks of everyone in this House to the FCO staff who are working in the crisis centre and across the country, and who have brought thousands of Brits back to the UK in the last few weeks. Nothing matters more to Foreign Office staff than protecting British nationals, and I know that because I have worked at the Foreign Office in this crisis. Let us remember that it is not easy. The Malaga team took 28,000 calls in one day a few Fridays ago. As Foreign Office staff, we are spat at and abused when trying to help British nationals to come home. These staff are working in tough situations, so I caution any Member suggesting that there are easy solutions. Will my right hon. Friend kindly reassure the public that, as he has said, when an embassy is closed it is, in fact, not closed? Will he also confirm that the safety of our staff is important, and commit to scrapping the cost of calls to consular lines?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for paying tribute to consular staff and FCO teams, and the work that they are doing, and for the general points that she has made. I can reassure her that embassies are being kept open wherever possible in order to give British  nationals who find themselves stranded or in a vulnerable position the support that they need, even if they cannot physically access the embassy or the high commission building. I can go further than that and tell her that we have spent the last fortnight reprioritising the work of the Foreign Office and our missions, so that the lion’s share—all but the most essential alternative business—is focused on the consular effort. We are limiting the drawdowns, in the way in which some hon. Members have suggested, to those that are required because of vulnerability or safety, and reprioritising them to meet the challenge of providing the consular services that  we need.

David Linden: I have constituents stuck in Peru, Australia, New Zealand and Spain, and I just wonder whether the Foreign Secretary might be able to use Members of Parliament as a way of disseminating information. Doing so might mean that multiple constituents are not phoning FCO lines but coming to us for information. I have to say that the current communication flow has not been acceptable. I have one constituent who is stuck in Peru, but in Cusco, not Lima. They want to get from Cusco to Lima so that they can get home. Can the Foreign Secretary try to ensure that we as Members of Parliament are involved, in order to take some of the load off the Foreign Office and help our constituents?

Dominic Raab: Yes. Cusco is a very good example of the challenge in Peru, but we believe that we have the capacity. We have the political agreement of the Government in Peru; we just need to ensure that the military, who run the airport, deliver on that. In Cusco and elsewhere across Peru, 1,000 UK nationals have registered with the embassy to ensure that we are in contact with them. This is a logistical challenge, because I think—from memory—it is at least a day’s drive from Cusco to Lima, so in all likelihood for most people the journey will require an additional internal flight, and we are working very hard to secure that. The hon. Gentleman will know the challenges involved, but certainly the more that he and all hon. Members can disseminate the contact points and information about signing up for real-time travel advice, the better; that would be helpful.

Peter Aldous: I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement. At present, I have constituents stuck in Bali, Peru, New Zealand and on the Coral Princess. May I just highlight a couple of issues? Commercial flights in New Zealand are currently collapsing like a stack of dominoes. With the Coral Princess currently docked in Rio, it also looks as if my constituents will not be able to disembark and will be on that ship for another two and a half weeks.

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have addressed the situation in New Zealand at some length. We are of course looking at that as a matter of urgency. The big thing for getting people back from Australia and New Zealand is going to be the international hubs; I hope that he has been reassured by the reassurances that I secured from the Singaporean Foreign Minister first thing this morning. My hon. Friend also asked about the Coral Princess cruise ship. Our embassy in Brasilia is working with the Ministry there and the cruise operator to secure permission for the ship to  dock at Rio in order to take advantage of the onward flights available to London. Some British nationals have already got places on board confirmed flights. We are doing as much as we can logistically to support them, and to get them and the other nationals home.

Thangam Debbonaire: I have 32 constituents who are stuck in eight countries—that we know of. I am concerned that some of them are running out of money. What support might be available, how should they access it and what can my caseworkers do to assist?

Dominic Raab: I do understand the situation in which people find themselves: they planned to be abroad for a certain period of time and have run out of cash. Given the scale, the Foreign Office cannot provide a direct subsidy or grant. Our priority is to try to ensure that people can get back home and, in extremis, if they have run out of money, we are willing to offer temporary loans to facilitate that situation, so we are doing everything that we practically and realistically can.

Julian Lewis: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about the Coral Princess, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to check on what is happening with this vessel? The information that I had from Ken and Doreen Hodge on board is that they are heading for Fort Lauderdale in the US, and they fear that they may then be required to stay for 14 days in isolation before coming home. Will he make a particular point of checking what is happening to the Coral Princess and the people on board?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think that I have described the latest data that I have, but, of course, we are tracking the cruise ship in real time. It has been a challenge on that bit of coastline and, indeed, in that region, to get onward flights and to get permission to dock in order to take advantage of them. None the less, we are tracking the situation. I track the cruise ships in real time every day. I can also reassure the House that we have changed the travel advice on cruise ships, and my understanding is that no further cruise ships are setting sail, so we are dealing with the stock that is at sea and making sure that we do everything we can to get everyone home. I have already explained the success that we had with the Braemar, the Azura, and the Norwegian Spirit. We are looking to do the same for those on the Coral Princess.

Helen Hayes: I have constituents trapped in New Zealand, Bali, the Philippines and Peru. Some have understood only the message that their local embassy is closed. Others are still being told to contact their airline or their insurer, when, at this point in time, the Foreign Office is the only place that can help them. Even in Peru, where I understand that good work is taking place, my constituents are dismayed at the lack of communication on the internal travel arrangements that need to be made to get them to Lima. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to look again as a matter of urgency at the quality of communication that his Department is providing to people who are very, very distressed?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady can certainly help in that regard, because I can give her the special email address that the embassy has set up to make sure that all those who need to register for flights can do so. I do not think that the situation is quite as dire as she suggests; 1,000 British nationals have already registered, but flights are limited. We are working to make sure that we have enough flights to deal not just with UK nationals in Lima, but, critically, with the logistical challenge of getting to Lima in time for those flights those who are not necessarily in Lima, close to the main international airport, but in other parts of the country.

James Wild: I acknowledge the work of Foreign Office staff who have already helped some of my constituents return safely to this country. However, I do have a constituent who is stuck in Bali. They are recovering from cancer and have a hospital appointment at Addenbrooke’s on Tuesday. I urge my right hon. Friend to press the airlines, including Emirates, to give more information to passengers who are struggling to find out whether flights exist and whether they will be taking off.

Dominic Raab: Yes, I certainly will take on board all of those concerns.
I have updated the House on what we are doing in relation to Bali. Flight options are still available, but they are decreasing hour by hour, and we are working not just with the Government and the transit hubs but with the airlines to try to keep as many options available as possible. Of course, in a case such as the one my hon. Friend described, we will do our utmost to get people on board the first available flight.

Wendy Chamberlain: Like many others here, I have a number of constituents trapped abroad, including a group from St Andrew’s University who are currently trapped on the Honduran island of Utila with no medical services. I was advised last night by the FCO that commercial flights from Australia and New Zealand were still available, but with worldwide hubs closing, that simply is not the case. Although I appreciate that this is challenging, and I am grateful for the update, I probably expected a bigger list. People contact their MP when they have no other options, so what measures are in place to ensure that the info that we are given as MPs is accurate and up-to-date and that we are not causing unnecessary distress to people at this time?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady and greatly appreciate the way in which she approached her question. Junior Ministers, and I as Foreign Secretary, are always available to provide as much detail as possible. We can always be contacted via our Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We are aware of the particular situation with the St Andrews group and we are in touch with the university about them. We have also made the Honduran authorities aware of their situation, so I hope I can reassure her that that has not slipped off the radar for either the Foreign Office or Ministers, and that we are doing everything we can to cater for them and for the others who are in Honduras.

Mark Harper: I have a number of constituents abroad in difficulties, and that number is increasing as the travel situation gets worse.  May I also place on record my thanks to the Foreign Secretary, his ministerial team and his PPSs for the prompt attention that they gave to cases I raised last week? I know from my experience as a Minister that everybody in our posts abroad and in the Foreign Office, from the heads of missions down, will be working their damnedest to get our people supported and home. They should know that they have our support as they work very hard to do so.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his championing of his constituents, particularly when they are in a vulnerable situation. It is important to pay tribute to the incredible work the consular teams are doing. We are doing everything we can to reinforce them in terms of manpower and resources, from call centres to posts, and they are doing an incredible job. It is not just British nationals; when I talk to my interlocutors around the world, I hear that even some of the smallest and poorer countries have nationals doing the same thing. Given the number of Brits travelling abroad, the consular teams are putting in a great shift, but the reality is that we will do everything we feasibly can to increase that capacity and provide as much help and support as we can to get Brits back home.

Jeff Smith: Given that we are still in a transition period with the EU, can the Foreign Secretary clarify whether UK nationals can access flights operated by EU countries? I understand that a number of them are operating flights and it might be possible and easier to get back to the UK from European countries rather than from other continents.

Dominic Raab: In general, nothing in the transition period regime is hampering the repatriation effort. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, given the number of Brits in European countries, we also have more airline capacity coming back. It is probably easier to pick up the phone to some of our European colleagues, who we know very well. The key thing is the bilateral dialogue: the calls I am making, and those that our embassies and junior Ministers are making hour by hour—not even day by day—to cover all the particular circumstances. The biggest problem is perhaps not some of the cases we all know about, such as people in Spain and Peru. Once we are on the case we can put a plan in place to get those nationals home. What catches out both British nationals and missions abroad is the fast-changing situation in smaller jurisdictions or those to which people travel less.

Bob Blackman: The Italian-owned company Costa Crociere has a number of cruise ships in and around the Mediterranean, in particular the Costa Victoria, which has literally hundreds of UK citizens on board. Unbelievably, they are going full steam ahead to dock at Venice. Of course, everyone on board is concerned about how they will get home from Venice, whether they will be admitted to Venice, and whether they will be infected with coronavirus as a result. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to ensure that these ships dock not in Italian waters but in other countries that will offer a safe haven and the chance to get home?

Dominic Raab: I shall certainly look into that particular case. The key thing for all cruise ships right now is to find a port of call where they can dock safely and to get those people a cordoned corridor to a repatriation flight as soon as possible. That has tended to be the basic two-point mechanism that has worked in getting British nationals back home, but I shall certainly look into that case.

Kevin Brennan: I also have constituents stranded in Vietnam, Australia, Bolivia and Costa Rica, but I want to ask about the travel advice the right hon. Gentleman issued yesterday. Where UK citizens abroad have an underlying health condition and feel it would be better not to travel home and are able to stay, perhaps because they are with family, for example, does his advice potentially invalidate their insurance if they choose to stay and subsequently become ill?

Dominic Raab: I cannot comment on individual cases, but I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That is why, when we have changed travel advice, we have always said that people have to take into account the circumstances and look at the pros and cons of staying put if they have accommodation, financial resilience and medical support, as opposed to returning home, depending on how quickly and easily that will be to do. Of all the various things I can do, I do not want to give medical advice.
In terms of insurance, the standard terms of insurance tend to follow the travel advice rather than the other way around. What we cannot do—there are legal reasons for this—is base our decisions on anything other than the risks to British nationals abroad.

Antony Higginbotham: I put on record my thanks to Foreign Office staff in the UK and around the world, as well as the FCO team, who are doing an incredible job in very difficult circumstances. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said about the conversations he and his team are having with other Foreign Ministers around the world. Is there more we can do not only through the G7, but the G20, which has a number of key transit hubs within its membership?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, first, for the credit he has given to the consular team at the Foreign Office, but also for raising the point of the G20. We also have a G20 leaders meeting, which will be virtual and remote, coming up. It is critically important that we make sure we work not only with the G7, the G20 and within the EU, but with all international forums, not least because of the broader range of countries involved and the ability as a result to secure routes back via hub routes and, in particular, transit routes. I have mentioned Singapore, but there are many others we can talk about, particularly in the Gulf.

Chris Stephens: I thank the Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have been enormously helpful. He may be aware that in Australia, British embassy officials are telling people to contact their Members of Parliament, so there are two things I ask him to raise. First, the travel insurance companies are providing no help and are refusing assistance to people who have been stuck abroad.  Secondly, there is the exploitative nature of some airlines. The cost to leave Australia with Qatar Airways has ramped up to 10,000 Australian dollars. Will the Foreign Secretary condemn that practice and take those sorts of practices up with airline companies?

Dominic Raab: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he paid to FCO staff. I can tell him that we are constantly talking to the airlines about limiting the additional cost expense put on travellers. Of course,  the airlines are under acute pressure right now, with the number of jurisdictions to which they can fly limited. The high commission has set out the details so that people who are concerned can register so that they can be informed about the flights that will be organised to take them home. We have more than 1,700 British nationals who have already registered. That works, so the key thing is to disseminate those contact details. If he needs them, I am happy to provide them.

Jason McCartney: I thank the Foreign Office team for their help in getting constituents home from Vietnam and Morocco. A couple of young constituents of mine have just made it safely to Lima for their flight home later this week, but I still have constituents stranded in Mauritius, India, Australia, Bali and New Zealand. Will the Foreign Secretary and all his team continue to work hour by hour through the night to secure the airline capacity we need to get those constituents home?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words. With the effort to get people out of Morocco, where we have worked with the airlines in what was a model and template for the future, we managed to get 8,500-plus passengers back home. We will seek to replicate that in all the jurisdictions he has mentioned.

John Spellar: I have been contacted by constituents stuck in India and Pakistan because of the closure of the airports there, but all around the world thousands of planes and pilots are underemployed or, indeed, even laid off. Is there not a real role for Government to mobilise the aviation industry and the airports and, indeed, to co-operate with those other Governments to actually get the airlift working to bring our people home?

Dominic Raab: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Transport Secretary is already engaged in those discussions with individual airlines. There is a practical, legal question of whether those airlines can get into the relevant countries and jurisdictions, and that is why I will be raising the matter at G7 level tomorrow.

Mark Pritchard: The Foreign Secretary has mentioned thousands, and in one reply he said that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are currently abroad. Could he provide the House with a more definitive estimate of the number of UK citizens abroad? He will recall that last week I pressed him on the use of the Royal Air Force in extremis. What further discussions has he had with Defence Ministers on deploying the RAF when required?

Dominic Raab: We do not regularly have a register of UK nationals travelling abroad. I checked in response to his earlier question, and we are obviously engaged with the Ministry of Defence, but the approach we are taking is to keep as many commercial routes open as possible. We have already arranged or worked with our international partners to charter flights in extremis. That is the surest way to get home the number of people who are currently travelling as opposed to being resident abroad. The range is in the hundreds of thousands, so we are talking of a scale that is unprecedented.

Ben Lake: Countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Peru have not only closed their international borders, but are considering imposing internal travel restrictions. Under such circumstances, can the Foreign Secretary reassure us that UK nationals who find themselves under lockdown will be supported to get from remote towns and villages to the main transport hubs?

Dominic Raab: In relation to Australia and Peru, there is a possibility of commercial flights, but of course they are limited. The reason that there is a possibility is that we have been working closely with those Governments and the airlines to make sure that there is a link out for UK nationals to avoid their being stranded. We are doing the same with New Zealand, and we will continue to put our shoulder to the wheel to get all those people, who might otherwise remain vulnerable or stranded, back home.

Richard Drax: I thank my right hon. Friend for all he is doing. Like other colleagues, I have constituents all around the world, but the bulk are in Spain. Will he tell the House exactly how we will get them home as soon as possible?

Dominic Raab: In relation to Spain, where we have probably one of the largest numbers of UK nationals travelling and resident abroad, my hon. Friend will know that all sorts of domestic restrictions have been put in place, as has been the case across Europe. There are also restrictions on travel in and out, and indeed there was an announcement that it would close the hotels, which was due to take effect today. I have spoken to the Spanish Foreign Minister to make it clear that, as we pursue that effort with the commercial airlines to get the Brits back—that will take some time, because of the volume—no British national should be kicked out of their hotel as a result of the new regulatory restrictions being put in place.

Bill Esterson: My 78-year-old constituent David Keating is stranded in Brazil with his wife and daughter. He has an underlying heart problem and requires medication, and he has only nine days’ medication left. He has had four flights cancelled already. The consulate is telling him that other European countries are arranging flights for their citizens. Please will the Secretary of State intervene with other European countries to help him and his family get home?

Dominic Raab: I will check, but it does not seem to me to be correct that others are pursuing options that we have just sat on our hands and avoided. That is not the approach. I can tell the hon. Member that, in relation to Peru, we will be the first of the European  countries to have a flight coming home, on the current projection. In relation to Brazil, of course we will be working actively, as we are in all the South American countries where we are particularly concerned about the restrictions put in place, to get British nationals—including his vulnerable constituent, who I understand has a particular medical condition—back home as soon as possible.

Stuart Anderson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work he is doing in returning Wolverhampton residents back home. I have two major concerns in relation to India and Pakistan. I have people there with medical conditions who cannot get the medication they need and cannot return home. Will he do everything in his power to return my constituents back to Wolverhampton?

Dominic Raab: Yes, I certainly will. I understand the difficult situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents find themselves in. India and Pakistan have had logistical challenges that are separate from the ones I have mentioned in the House, but I assure him that we are well aware of the particular challenges, and we are working day and night to try to overcome them.

Jim Shannon: My constituent Dean Lawson is stuck in New Zealand. He is hoping to come back through Australia, but that has not been confirmed. The Secretary of State has mentioned that Singapore was a hub on the way home. I am not here to embarrass anybody, but I understand, as of an hour ago, that Singapore is no longer an option. If it is not an option, may I ask him what happens with those people who cannot go to Singapore? Where do they go?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Singaporeans have introduced fresh restrictions. That is why at 8 o’clock this morning I was on the phone to the Singaporean Foreign Minister. We talked about the need to act reciprocally, and the understanding was very clear that we would work together to make sure British nationals can get back via Singapore—not just those travelling in Singapore but those who use it as a transit hub.

Steve Brine: I have a couple of constituents stuck in New Zealand who are intensive care unit doctors. For obvious reasons, how can the Foreign Secretary help, please?

Dominic Raab: We are working to get all the Brits in New Zealand back home. I have updated the House in some detail about the measures we are taking. If my hon. Friend has any problem getting his constituents the advice that the high commission is providing, please get in contact with me and we will make sure that we personally make that happen.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about poor communication. That is leading to constituents contacting their Members of Parliament. They are rightly worried, and individuals here are worried, about loved ones abroad. Yesterday afternoon, the MPs’ hotline did not work when my office contacted it about a constituent stuck in New  Zealand. Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that, if we are given email addresses or telephone numbers at the Foreign Office to raise individual cases, they will actually work?

Dominic Raab: The email addresses all work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the challenges the call centre faces, but it is not a question of it not working; when a whole string of Governments announce restrictions, demand goes through the roof. We understand that. We have doubled the capacity—I have mentioned that already—and we are looking to double it again so that we can deal with this issue. I hope that he will be mindful not just of the scale of British nationals abroad but of the rate of new restrictions that Governments—

Kevan Jones: No.

Dominic Raab: The right hon. Gentleman says, “No”. Well, then he is staring the challenge in the face and not quite appreciating it. The rate with which changes have been imposed over the last few days has made it an unprecedented challenge, but I am confident that we will rise to it.

Anthony Browne: I have 18 constituents stranded overseas who have contacted me for help getting home. Some of them are running out of money or medication. I recognise the extraordinary circumstances that we are in, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, his Ministers and consular officials for the work they are doing. One constituent, Brianna Lewis, who is in Cusco, has lost her passport and has no travel documents. She cannot contact the consular offices to get a replacement passport or emergency travel documents. Will my right hon. Friend say what someone in those circumstances should do? She is worried that if she turns up to the airport, she will not be able to get on the plane.

Dominic Raab: I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts me or one of the junior Ministers and we will look into that case directly. Obviously, that creates something of a challenge, but not one that should be insurmountable.

Caroline Lucas: I have around 20 constituents affected, one of whom is in Peru with his Irish partner Niamh, who has lived and worked   in England for around 19 years. Last night they got an email from the FCO saying that it will try to help him but that it does not think it will be able to help her. At this hugely stressful time, they face being separated, in spite of the fact that Niamh was advised by the Irish embassy that their best chance of getting out together was to go via the UK Government. I wonder whether there is anything the Foreign Secretary can do to help those constituents.

Dominic Raab: That is a plight that quite a few people have found themselves in. When we have talked to the Peruvian authorities, we have been clear that we will bring back UK nationals and any foreign national dependants who are with them. We have had excellent co-operation with the Irish authorities. I have spoken to Simon Coveney in the last few days. We are always willing to share the burden of getting UK nationals, Irish nationals and European nationals back home, including their dependants, who may not be of the same nationality. I will look into that case.

Matt Western: This morning I received a couple of emails. One was from Lucy Kelly, who is stuck in Australia facing a 140% hike in air fares to get back to the UK. The other was from Kamaljit Dhesi, who, like many families from Warwick and Leamington, is stuck in India due to the lockdown there. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must either introduce some sort of price cap for these carriers or exercise some sort of requisitioning powers to get our people back?

Dominic Raab: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions, and the spirit in which he makes them. In relation to India, if there is a full lockdown we will need to negotiate with the Indian Government to facilitate access for commercial or charter flights. In relation to the other situation, we are working closely with the airlines, and that is work that the Secretary of State for Transport is taking forward. We want to get to a situation, given the huge pressure that the airlines are under, where we can provide stability but also the reassurance that repatriation or return flights can take place. This is an urgent priority for the FCO, and we are working closely with the Department for Transport to secure it.

Covid-19 Update

Matthew Hancock: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on covid-19. The spread of coronavirus is rapidly accelerating across the world and in the UK. The actions that we took yesterday are not actions that any UK Government would ever want to take, but they were absolutely necessary. The goal is clear: to slow the rate of transmission in order to protect the NHS and save lives. Our instruction is simple: stay at home.
People should only leave their home for one of four reasons: first, to shop for basic necessities, such as food, as infrequently as possible; secondly, to exercise once a day, for example a run, walk or cycle, alone or with members of the same household; thirdly, for any medical need, or to provide care or help to a vulnerable person; and fourthly, to travel to and from work, but only where it cannot be done from home, and employers should be taking every possible step to ensure that staff can work remotely. Those four reasons are exceptions to the rule. Further guidance is available on the gov.uk website.
I want to be clear that where people absolutely cannot work from home, they can still go to work. Indeed, it is important that they do so in order to keep the country running. Key workers, for example in the NHS and social care, pharmacists and those in the medicines supply chain, should go to work, unless they are self-isolating because they or someone else in their household has symptoms. We will be publishing guidance later today to explain the steps that employers must take to ensure that employees are safe, including making sure that there is a 2-metre gap between workers wherever possible.
In addition, all non-essential shops and community centres are closed as of today, and gatherings of more than two people in public must stop. These measures are not advice; they are rules. They will be enforced, including by the police, with fines for non-compliance starting at £30 but up to unlimited fines.
I want to update the House on the shielding that was introduced yesterday. We are writing to up to 1.5 million of the most vulnerable people in the UK to advise them that they will need to shield themselves from the virus in the coming months. We will provide targeted support for all those who need it so that they have the food supplies and medical care they need to make it through. Guided by the experts, we will look at the evidence and continually review the effects of the measures.
We are engaged in a great national effort to beat the virus. Everybody now has it in their power to save lives and protect the NHS. Home is now the frontline. In  this national effort, working together, we can defeat this disease. Everyone has a part to play. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State, as always, for advance sight of his statement. As he knows, yesterday we called on the Government to move to implement the enforcement  of social distancing measures, so the Prime Minister was quite right last night to call for people to stay at home.
May I put to the Secretary of State a few quick questions? The virus thrives on inequalities. It is the most vulnerable, without financial security, who are especially at risk. I therefore urge him to consider abolishing prescription charges for the duration of the outbreak, especially for those with conditions such as asthma. We are very mindful of the mental health implications of asking people to stay at home, and we are also deeply concerned about the potential for domestic violence to increase. What support is available on those two fronts?
We also need clear and unambiguous advice around which workers can and cannot go out. The Opposition would call for just key workers to be able to go to work. We have seen Sports Direct, for example, insisting that its workers turn up today. We are hearing stories about warehouses insisting that agency workers turn up and about construction sites not putting in place social distancing measures. That is putting workers at risk, and it is putting the lives of us all at risk. We need clear enforcement; if we are telling people that they will be fined for leaving their house, why are we not fining employers for insisting that their employees turn up to work when they should be staying at home? My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor will be putting more points to the Government about income protection in the debate later today.
Let me quickly turn to personal protective equipment. I understand the efforts the Government have made, but there are still NHS staff saying that they have no access to adequate PPE. We still have hospital chief executives expressing concern that they do not have access to FFP3 masks, that they are not getting the visors and sanitisers they need on time and that, when they do get masks, they are different from the previous masks, so staff have to be retrained. I urge the Government to move heaven and earth to get the PPE our staff need to the frontline. We also need PPE in social care. We are beginning to see outbreaks of covid-19 in social care homes. What support is in place for the residents of care homes, and when will we get the PPE that we need into the social care sector?
Enforced social distancing is welcome—we called for it—but in many ways it is a blunt tool without ramping up testing and contact tracing. That is how countries such as South Korea have managed to suppress the virus. We are still testing only around 5,000 people a day. We do not have enough community testing. We are still not testing enough NHS staff. As the World Health Organisation has instructed the world, test, test, test.
Leaked emails today suggest that, on Sunday, the Government were asking to borrow research institutions’ testing kits—we have called for that, and we do not disagree with it—but the emails also said that the Prime Minister had said:
“there are no machines available to buy”.
Many of our constituents, and indeed NHS staff, will be asking why we did not procure machines and kits sooner.
On intensive care capacity, there are reports today that the ExCeL centre will be turned into a field hospital of 500 beds and that staffing ratios for intensive care are  being relaxed. We understand that, given the staffing demands we face, but if we are setting up more field hospitals, will the Secretary of State tell us what oversight there will be? That change also means that more of our specialist staff will be stretched further—we understand why—but what guidance will be in place? Will the Secretary of State update the House on how many intensive care beds are now open, and how many more will be opened; how many ventilators we have, and how many more will be purchased; how many beds with oxygen we have; and what the current extracorporeal membrane oxygenation capacity is?
Will the Secretary of State quickly update the House on an issue that has emerged overnight about access to abortion care, as a result of some of the implications of the Coronavirus Bill? Will he assure the House that women who want access to abortion care will continue to be able to get it?
Our constituents are worried; our constituents are fearful. I hope the Secretary of State understands that when we put these questions to him, we are doing so because we want the national effort to defeat this virus to succeed.

Matthew Hancock: I will go through the answers to the questions the hon. Gentleman reasonably asked. He asked about the most vulnerable. A programme of work is under way to ensure that those who need support because they are staying at home—especially those who are victims of domestic violence—get that support. It is incredibly important and difficult work, but we are doing what we can in that space. He also asked about prescription charges. Only around a fifth of people pay prescription charges, so those who are the least able to pay already get free prescriptions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Sports Direct. Sports shops are not essential retail, and therefore they will be closed. I have seen a bit of the noise that has been going on around today about Sports Direct in particular. I want to be absolutely clear that sports kit is not essential over the next three weeks, so we will be closing Sports Direct, along with other non-essential retail. He also asked about fines for corporates as well as individuals—absolutely, those fines are available if that is necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about protective equipment, and he is quite right to do so, because as we discussed yesterday, having protective equipment for staff on the frontline—especially those in the NHS and social care, but also in other frontline services—is very important. We are moving heaven and earth, and the military involvement is ramping up the delivery of that equipment. He asked specifically about social care. I am glad to say that the current plan is to get protective equipment to all social care settings by the end of this week, and then we will have to keep going. We have put in place a hotline. If someone needs PPE and they are not getting it, they should call the hotline so that we know where the difficulties are in getting PPE to the frontline, and we can respond to those calls and get it to them. I feel that very strongly.
The hon. Gentleman asked about testing. As we have discussed many times, we are ramping up testing as fast as we can, including buying millions of tests. My team are currently buying these tests, which we will make available as quickly as possible. He asked about there being no machines ready to buy. I do not recognise that  at all. I have not seen any leak, and I would not want to comment on a leaked email—certainly not one that I have not seen. It is true that we are bringing testing machines together to provide a more efficient testing system, and I am grateful to the universities that have put these testing machines into the system. This is a national effort, and they are playing their part. We are also buying machines where we can.
The hon. Gentleman asked about staff ratios, which have been publicised this morning. It is true that we are having to change the standard staff ratios for delivery of certain types of procedure, including ventilation. The reason is that we cannot easily train somebody to intubate a patient and put them on a ventilator. We are training those who we can train to the standards necessary, but this is an incredibly difficult task, and it is therefore safer to have the doctors who are trained to do it and experienced in doing it doing it to more people, with more support staff than in normal circumstances. That is absolutely necessary to respond to the quantity of need, because this is a very specialist part of the NHS and of medicine that suddenly has much bigger demand than could ever have been envisaged outside a pandemic scenario.
I pay tribute to the staff who will be working much more intensively and who are putting their vital skills at the service of the nation in order to save lives. I am grateful to all those who have worked with the royal colleges to ensure that we get these ratios right and stretch the capabilities we have as far as we safely can in the circumstances. Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned abortion. We have no proposals to change any abortion rules as part of the covid-19 response.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Health Secretary for the superhuman efforts he has taken to resolve the issues around PPE in the last week. The evidence is that we are in a much better situation now than we were a week ago. He will not mind if I follow up what the shadow Health Secretary said about testing. The concern is that we appear to be testing on a daily basis virtually no more people than we were over a week ago, when the commitment was to increase the daily number of tests from 5,000 to 25,000. Given that this is a vital part of the success of the suppression strategies in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, can he give us an estimated date when we will get back to routine covid-19 testing in the community of all suspected cases? Even if that is three or four weeks away, a date means that there is a plan, and without  a date, people will not be confident that this really is  the plan.

Matthew Hancock: Although I was not in the Chamber, I heard the comments that my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee made about this yesterday, and he is right to push on this issue. I am not going to give him a date today, because we are in the middle of buying the tests that are needed, especially the new tests that have just come on stream. I have been able to give him the update that we have now purchased millions of these tests, which will arrive in the next days and weeks. I will be in a position to give him a more concrete timetable, and I will make sure he gets that as soon as we can make it public.

Owen Thompson: I extend our continued thanks and gratitude to all who are working around the clock to help keep us all safe, and to look after us and the most vulnerable in our communities. I also extend our thanks to the millions of people who have already acted on the Government’s advice to stay at home. The importance of that cannot be stressed nearly enough, because that is what we all need to do to protect our friends and families and the vulnerable people in our communities. It is deeply unfortunate that some employers, such as Sports Direct, seem to be acting in an entirely irresponsible manner, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about that.
In looking to see what more we can do, will the Secretary of State outline when he expects all frontline NHS staff to have the PPE that they need? We need to do everything we can to support them, given the extent of the risks that they are facing. How many additional ventilators have we managed to procure since the Prime Minister put out the call to manufacturers? Are the Government planning to accept the EU’s offer to share in central procurement of ventilators, testing kits  and PPE?
Scotland has a number of qualified doctors and nurses who arrived in the country during the refugee crisis. Will the Secretary of State commit to talking to the Home Secretary about what possible actions could be taken to relax the existing rules, to allow those qualified medical professionals to support the country that they have adopted as their home?
In the light of the outcome of the Keeling study, which was published by the Government on 20 March, is the Secretary of State ensuring that we have rapid and effective contact tracing? The review showed that such action could reduce the number of people infected by each case from 3.11 to 0.21, and that would be a significant step towards greater containment of the current outbreak.
Finally, I stress to the Secretary of State the need to impress on other Cabinet members the urgency of finding support for the self-employed, who are still waiting to find out what position they will find themselves in. We know that people with no financial backing come under pressures that may have an impact on their health, which would put further pressure on the system.

Matthew Hancock: On the last point, there was an urgent question about exactly that issue. It really is a matter for the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman is right that contact tracing is incredibly important, and the amount of contact tracing that we have done is one of the reasons why we have managed to be behind other European countries in the curve. At this stage in the epidemic, it is not possible to have contact tracing for everybody, as we can when there is a very small number. We are looking at how we can do that better and enable individuals to contact trace, including by using technology.
The hon. Gentleman asked about refugees. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber yesterday, but that subject was brought up and I said that I would look into it. I will get back on that as soon as I can.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of ventilators. We started with around 5,000 and we now have more than 12,000, which we have bought. We have  also made the call to arms for manufacturing capability to be turned over to ventilators, and that has been very successful.
I strongly endorse and support the backing of the Scottish Government and the SNP in the UK-wide approach to getting the message out to everybody that the most important thing anybody can do is stay at home.

David Davis: I commend the Secretary of State for his heroic efforts in our defence so far. Given that the proscription on travel is now legal and not simply a recommendation, will he give us some clarification on what is meant by the care exemption, and confirm that it does not apply just to professional carers? At the moment, and since special schools have been closed in the last week, a great deal of support has been given from one family to another, for example in providing respite care for special needs children. That is very important and the people doing it are often being very responsible about self-isolation, which they are already applying to their families. Will that continue to be possible, and will my right hon. Friend enable it in future?

Matthew Hancock: I will say three things in response to my right hon. Friend’s questions. On special schools, one of the carve-outs in the closure of schools was keeping open schools for those who are vulnerable, including those with special educational needs. The Bill includes a power to enable us to move from that position, but we do not propose to exercise it unless absolutely necessary. The position therefore is that if someone wishes to send their child to a special school, that is fine. It was one of the specific carve-outs. In the same way, if a key worker needs to send their child to school and cannot look after them at home, schools are available.
My right hon. Friend asked about care. I want to make it clear that for people who are volunteering in response to covid-19 and those who are caring, even if their responsibilities are unpaid or informal, they are okay to do that and should do that. They should stay more than 2 metres away from others wherever possible, but that has to be a practical instruction, because of course we need to care for people. As I said in the statement, travel allows for caring, and I want to make it clear that volunteering in the response to covid-19 is a legitimate reason to travel. For example, the increasing numbers of volunteers in the NHS are important. Although it is not paid work, it is work in the national effort to respond to covid-19.
My third point is that the Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Minister is sitting next to me and close to me, because she has recovered and all the evidence shows that people cannot catch covid-19 twice, at least not in quick succession. I welcome her back to her place.

Liz Twist: Following on the volunteering theme, I know that the Government have already made arrangements for schools and given advice that volunteers may still go in for certain purposes. Will the Secretary of State expand that to cover organisations such as Samaritans, which uses volunteers to travel to call rooms? Will he make it clear that it is acceptable for volunteers to  do that?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, it is acceptable. It is right that volunteers in that sort of work, for example Samaritans, should travel to do it.

Mark Harper: The Secretary of State will know that, following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, all tourism and leisure providers have closed. I commend those in my constituency that closed before the advice was given, in order to protect people. However, those who take lots of deposits are obviously being pressed by our constituents to return that money, and that may put them in financial distress, but equally our constituents need the money back given their financial circumstances. I accept that the Secretary of State may not have an answer for me now, but will he at least commit to take the issue away and see whether an answer is forthcoming, perhaps with the support of the Treasury?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will get my right hon. Friend an answer from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Daniel Zeichner: The Independent Food Aid Network oversees the work of many food banks, and I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s comments about volunteering. That organisation is worried about the closure of community centres and churches. Will he reassure it that its valuable work and volunteers will be covered by the guidance?

Matthew Hancock: We will set out the breadth of the guidance precisely on gov.uk.

Stephen Hammond: Like my honourable colleagues, I commend the Secretary of State’s superhuman efforts. On the subject of procurement, may I say two things? First, he will know that the Public Health England change of guidelines has caused some concern. Will he ensure that they are clear to people? Secondly, a senior A&E consultant reminded me that they need more blood gas machines as well as more ventilators.

Matthew Hancock: Yes, both are important points that we have in hand.

Edward Davey: It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), back in her place—I am not sure whether the Secretary of State still needs to have 2 metres distance.
May I press the Secretary of State on personal protective equipment? I hear what he says, and it is good that the military are being involved in the distribution, but is there enough PPE available for all healthcare workers and social care workers? If not, what is happening with manufacturing and the procurement from around the world, because we are told there is some available from around the world?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we have a huge quantity that we hold ready for an eventuality such as this. That was, in fact, enhanced in our no-deal preparations, but of course we are also using that up, so we are buying to make sure that those stocks are replenished.

Andrew Murrison: I am very reassured to hear that by the end of the week, care settings will all get PPE, which is not what the leader of my council was being told recently. I accept the Secretary of State’s reassurance: it is really good news. Can he further reassure me that the PPE, when it arrives, will be to the right specification, in particular FFP3 respirator masks and not simply paper masks, which are next to useless?

Matthew Hancock: If there are specific concerns about the non-delivery of PPE to council settings, I want to know about them through the hotline that we have set up precisely to short-circuit such problems having to be brought to my attention on the Floor of the House. Let us fix them directly. On the second point, it has got to be the right stuff according to the clinical guidelines.

Ruth Cadbury: We have been told that by the time covid-19 peaks, 44,000 women will need access to early medical abortions. Women should not have to leave their homes during lockdown to access basic healthcare, so will the Secretary of State commit not to oppose moves in the other place to enable individual healthcare practitioners to certify abortions and to reinstate the regulations that were put up for a short while on the Government website last night, so that we can have use of abortion medication and one practitioner being able to prescribe on the phone?

Matthew Hancock: There are no proposals to change the abortion rules due to covid-19.

Graham Brady: Care homes are being asked by local authorities to contract for block bookings of beds, but at the moment they would bear the liability if something were to go wrong—if residents were to come to them with the infection. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look urgently at the question of whether an indemnity can be provided?

Matthew Hancock: I will get back to my hon. Friend on that very, very important point. I am grateful that he raised it with me privately earlier, and I am sorry that I have not been able to get a reply in time.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he join me in commending Pact House, a charity in my constituency in Stanley, which is delivering meals and food to the elderly with some 90 volunteers? It contacted me this morning because it is concerned that the building it operates from may need some type of certificate to keep operating, following the announcement yesterday.
Can he clarify the position? Will it just be allowed to open, or will it have to apply for some sort of letter to say that it can operate?

Matthew Hancock: As long as it is operating within the guidelines that the Prime Minister outlined in his address to the nation last night, which are set out in detail on the gov.uk website, it is doing the right thing and does not need any further certification.

Tim Loughton: One of the glimmers of light in these troubling times are the amazing community volunteer projects that have sprung up in all our constituencies. The Secretary of State will be pleased to learn that on Sunday, we set up a “shopital” outside Worthing hospital, and I spent several hours selling rice, spuds and, crucially, loo paper to more than 100 ambulancemen, nurses and doctors. Should not that sort of arrangement be happening anyway with the supermarkets and with the new scheme delivering food packets, to make sure that NHS workers for whom going shopping at eight o’clock in the morning during the “golden hour” is not appropriate can get on with their job much more easily?

Matthew Hancock: I did not know that my hon. Friend was engaged in that sort of activity on a Sunday morning, but I am delighted that he was. Making sure that we get hot meals to NHS staff who are working often many more shifts than gives them time to make a good meal is incredibly important. It is something that we are working hard on, but I am really glad when it happens spontaneously, as well as when we try to sort it from the Department.

Chris Elmore: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am being inundated, as I am sure many other Members are, in relation to small firms that are still insisting on their staff going in and undertaking roles, including fitting windows and doors, and those that are saying, “Well, the business is coming in; we’re going to stay open and carry on making new work,” despite having to travel house to house to offer what is fundamentally a non-essential service. Will the Secretary of State raise this issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Ministers to ensure that those small firms, which arguably do not need to be working, are keeping their staff at home?

Matthew Hancock: I will raise that question and make sure that the appropriate guidance is put on gov.uk.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job and is being incredibly responsive, despite what I appreciate must be the huge volume of correspondence coming into his inbox. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. However, there is confusion about whether people should be going to work or not. From both a health and an economic perspective, as a business owner, I would much rather have a short, sharp shock, with everything closed down for 30 days to get this disease under control and allow the Secretary of State to get his testing and tracking in place and defeat it.

Matthew Hancock: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said—and not just the first bit—but I repeat what I said in my statement. I want to be clear that, where people absolutely cannot work from home, they can still go to work. Indeed, it is important that they do so to keep the country running.

Patrick Grady: That is the nub of the confusion, because I am hearing reports from constituents and from elsewhere in the city that, for example, workers in call centres for outbound sales calls—which will undoubtedly be disruptive to those self-isolating at home who receive them—are being  asked to come in and work in cramped conditions, which we know exist in such places. Should those employers not be taking advantage of the Government’s furlough scheme, so that their employees do not have to come into work? Is it not the case that no employee should be punished for doing the right thing and following the Government advice to stay at home?

Matthew Hancock: That sort of activity can technically be done from home and, where work cannot be done from home, employers should be following the guidelines to keep people more than 2 metres apart.

Desmond Swayne: There are many essential jobs and repairs that need to be done in people’s homes by workmen. So long as those homes are not specifically shielded or self-isolating because of suspected disease, and so long as the proper social separation is maintained, surely those ought to proceed, ought they not?

Matthew Hancock: If they are essential, yes, but the aim here is to try to absolutely push down the speed of transmission of this disease over the next few weeks, to get a grip on its spread. That means that, while we have set out four reasons where it is reasonable to leave one’s home, people should stay at home if they do not have a good reason.

Wes Streeting: I will not read the text message that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) because it contains unparliamentary language. However, further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I think the Secretary of State needs to give the House a clear explanation as to why it was yesterday that clear guidance was provided by the Government on access to abortion early in the day, only for it to be removed from the Government website later in the day. Why is that? Why are the Government not listening to the royal colleges, and why are they making it more difficult for women  to get access to an essential procedure during this time of crisis?

Matthew Hancock: All I can do is repeat the clarity that there are no proposals to change abortion law.

Alicia Kearns: Will my right hon Friend confirm what the advice is on visiting loved ones in hospital? Will he also confirm that Rutland is not a “hospital desert”—as reported by Sky News, which has concerned my constituents, who have access to Leicester and Peterborough—and urge the media to be cautious about deeply unhelpful and sensationalist reporting?

Matthew Hancock: Yes; my hon. Friend makes a very important point.

Jim Shannon: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the attempt to alter the abortion regime through the Coronavirus Bill is not the right use of those measures? Any change to abortion legislation, which is almost the last protection for our unborn children, deserves adequate scrutiny and appropriate debate, which is not possible right now. Will he, for the  record, assure me that no changes to that legislation, which regulates life and death, will be made in this way through stealth and opportunism?

Matthew Hancock: I repeat an answer that I have given before: there are no proposals to change the law around abortion.

Steve Brine: Sorry to return to the “going to work” point, but last night the Government were saying, “The only reason you may leave home is to go to work (if you’re a key worker)”, but then the part in brackets changed to “but work from home if possible”. I think that is where there is confusion. People are not sure what they can and cannot do. That is a pattern that we have, sadly, seen repeated, and which has led to “lockdown/not lockdown”. Could the Secretary of State say what the advice is again? I am not wishing to cause trouble; I am just looking for clarity.

Matthew Hancock: The Prime Minister was clear in his address to the nation; I have been clear in my statement today; and the guidance on gov.uk is absolutely clear on this point.

Kevin Brennan: Many hon. Members are not here because they are being responsible and allowing some of us to represent them, so that we can observe proper social distancing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has asked me to raise the issue of irresponsible employers. She tells me that the Home Office in Sheffield is requiring workers to come in to do word processing and administrative work that could be done at home. Will the Secretary of State undertake to communicate my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Home Secretary, and if what my hon. Friend describes is the case, ask the Home Secretary to put a stop to it straightaway and set a good example?

Matthew Hancock: I will ensure that that is looked into.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the army of volunteers in Bournemouth and across the country—the individuals, businesspeople, charity groups and local organisations—who want to be part of the solution, and to help the elderly and vulnerable, allowing us to adapt to this new way of life? Yesterday, a 30-day lockdown was spoken of; this will require some form of enforcement. Can he say what role the armed forces might play in that?

Matthew Hancock: The armed forces are doing an absolutely fantastic job of supporting civilian efforts, for instance in the NHS on the logistics of delivery of protective equipment and much more; but the armed forces will not be involved in the enforcement of the law. That is for the police, who will levy fines, starting at £30 and escalating if people continue to flout the rules.

Bill Esterson: One of my constituents is a home carer who has been unable to get PPE. She stopped working because her daughter has asthma, and obviously she is concerned about the potential for passing on the virus. I am pleased about what the Health Secretary said about the availability of PPE, but  people such as my constituent, and their employers, need to know how to get hold of it. He said that that information would be on the gov.uk website, but not everybody knows about the website. Could he improve awareness of how to find out this information, and make sure that we have access to the website and the phone number?

Matthew Hancock: I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the phone number, so that he can pass it on to his constituent, and so that others in the same circumstances know how to make that happen.

Ruth Edwards: NHS workers are on the frontline of this battle, at huge personal risk. Many have returned to the NHS especially to fight coronavirus. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this is over, we need to find an appropriate way to recognise and honour their bravery?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that we as a nation owe a debt of gratitude to those who work in the NHS, and we need to constantly search for ways to show it, so that they all know how much we value the work that they do.

Matt Western: I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about an absolute shutdown, and absolute clarity for the public. Does the Secretary of State agree that we urgently need to get more FFP3 masks out there? That is what the frontline health workers are demanding, because they are terrified by the prospect of this crisis. The masks provided to the construction industry would be suitable for healthcare workers, I understand.

Matthew Hancock: I will look into that point. The masks need to be clinically right; it is not for me to make that decision, but I will take this up with the chief medical officer.

Richard Drax: May I personally thank my right hon. Friend and the Department for the rapid response he has given to every inquiry that I have made on behalf of my constituents? I also praise the NHS in Dorset and, of course, throughout the country for all the fantastic work that everyone is doing in the face of this appalling virus.
First, we are still having problems getting PPE; I heard the Secretary of State say that the phone line, to which he kindly referred me, is still the best way to try to follow up on that. Secondly, supermarkets are impossible to get hold of so that food banks can go online to request regular deliveries. Is there some way that we  can get a message to all supermarkets to help out in  that regard?

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first point. He is right that the hotline is the best way to sort out the PPE supply issues. I am told that it has already responded to more than 2,000 inquiries, is moving through inquiries fast and has a lot of people on  the other end of the line to make sure that people can get hold of somebody. I shall take up the latter point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Peter Aldous: I commend my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he is doing. Will he provide some clarification on the definition of essential retail? The general store that purchases a freezer and says that it is a food store quite clearly is not, but the garden centre that incorporates a farm shop that may serve a local community might well be.

Matthew Hancock: These things will inevitably end up being a judgment at the boundary, but if there are two types of shop in one organisation, we will sometimes require some parts of it to close. If there is a café in a shop that sells essential supplies, the café must close but the essential-supplies part can stay open.

Jason McCartney: I, too, praise the Secretary of State and his wonderful team for their heroic efforts in fighting this killer virus. Will he confirm that volunteers such as those in the Holme Valley Covid Mutual Aid group, who are providing shopping services, delivering food parcels, picking up prescriptions, posting mail and dog walking, should continue to supply those services for their community, in a safe way?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, they should. They should stay 2 metres away from other people, wherever possible, but we are actively encouraging the voluntary effort in support of covid-19 and we actively support it.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Secretary of State for all he is doing and I thank the thousands of retired nurses who have answered his call to come back to the NHS, but may I just raise a wrinkle in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme? A nurse wrote to me who is 58 and retired at 55. She has returned to work for 16 hours and is happy to work full time, but she is concerned about the possible effect on her pension. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of Exchequer work together to look at the situation and make sure that there are no financial barriers to heroes such as her coming back to work for our NHS?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We solved several of the problems in the pension system at the Budget, and there are further solutions in the Bill. I have not come across any further problems in respect of pensions, but if my hon. Friend writes to me with the individual case, I will check that that is the case in that instance, too.

James Wild: On Saturday, I met the chief executive and the incident management team at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn in   my constituency, where sadly two patients who tested positive for covid-19 died last week. I pay tribute to the dedication of all the staff who are, as the Secretary of State knows, working in buildings that need more investment. Will he make sure that those on the frontline continue to get the PPE that they need and have more access to ventilators?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely—on all counts. I just want to add my thanks to all those working on the frontline, and throughout the NHS and social care, to my hon. Friend’s thanks to those in King’s Lynn. I also put on the record my thanks to my extraordinary civil service political and Public Health England team, who have done amazing work and continue to work incredibly hard in response to this crisis.

Scott Benton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our fantastic NHS staff at Blackpool Victoria Hospital? Some private firms in my constituency have offered free or discounted parking to NHS staff, to help them out in these difficult times. Will he commend those firms and encourage others to do the same to make sure that it is as easy as possible for staff to get to work?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will. I pay tribute to all the staff at Blackpool hospital. I met some of them during the election campaign and I know that they are working incredibly hard in preparation for what is to come. I absolutely commend all those who are giving free parking to NHS staff and we are looking at what we can do to make that happy occurrence spread more broadly across the NHS.

Bill Presented

Contingencies Fund Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to make provision increasing the maximum capital of the Contingencies Fund for a temporary period.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time  now, and to be printed (Bill 123) with explanatory notes (Bill 123-EN).

Wellbeing of Future Generations

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Caroline Lucas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for requiring public bodies to act in pursuit of the United Kingdom’s environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing by meeting wellbeing objectives, publishing future generations impact assessments, accounting for preventative spending, and through public services contracts; to establish a Commissioner for Future Generations for the United Kingdom; to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations; to require companies to consider the impact of their activities on the United Kingdom’s wellbeing; and for connected purposes.
It is a great honour to introduce the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill today. I pay tribute to the Bill’s co-sponsors, the indefatigable Lord Bird and everyone who has been involved in the Today for Tomorrow campaign so far. I wish that I was introducing the Bill in very different circumstances, but I am confident that hon. Members can see that it does not conflict with our immediate priorities, which are rightly elsewhere. Indeed, at times like this, it is only human to ask, “What could we have done differently to prevent this from happening? How can we stop something like this ever happening again?” Our common interests, our connectivity to one another and our compassion are all burning bright in an otherwise dark moment. Acting today for tomorrow is as relevant now as it will ever be.
As we wrote yesterday, as co-sponsors of the Bill, in a letter published in The Guardian:
“It is essential to deal with coronavirus as it is—a global emergency—but it is clear we must work harder to predict and prepare for the existential risks we face. Not only the threat of pandemics, but the climate crisis”
too. That is the nub of the Today for Tomorrow campaign. It is backed not just by all the sponsors of the wellbeing of future generations Bill, but by over 70 MPs in total and many in the other place who spoke eloquently in favour of its proposals.
The future generations Bill is also gaining support from across civil society, my constituents and, I am sure, from many others as well. It all suggests that the desire to be better ancestors is incredibly strong. To me, it also suggests that we know in our hearts and in our heads that the way that we currently make policy and legislation does not adequately prioritise the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren.
When we are rebuilding on the other side of this pandemic, we can choose to do so with greater consideration than ever to future generations, with stronger compassion for every person and their wellbeing, and with an unshakeable commitment to building an economy and society that works for everyone now and for the future. It is these values of compassion and consideration, co-operation and courage that hold us together in times of disaster, and the same values are at the heart of this Bill, which it wants to centre in our politics at all times.
We are all aware of the pressures that regular election cycles place on decision makers to pursue policies that show benefits quickly and the difficulty that that can add in addressing longer-term challenges. The climate crisis is an obvious example, with decades of delay  between today’s emissions and the full impacts of their heating. The glacial pace of climate action shows that economies and political systems the world over are failing to value future lives and, indeed, the wellbeing  of current generations in the manner they deserve. Last month, a landmark report from the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and The Lancet found that no single country is sufficiently protecting children’s health, their environment and their futures. That index, which compares performance on issues from child flourishing to greenhouse gas emissions and equity, finds that countries the world over are failing the next generation. We can and must do better than this. The same is true in other areas, including poverty, regional inequality, environmental degradation and the over-consumption of finite resources. Each of these have their impacts today, but each also harms the health, means and opportunities of tomorrow.
The concept of our obligations to future generations is not new; it exists in every political tradition. It can transcend party politics. The Big Issue’s Today for Tomorrow campaign has secured pledges from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the former leader of the Lib Dems, the First Minister of Scotland and the leader of Plaid Cymru. I hope that the Prime Minister will therefore ensure that this Bill continues its journey through the House in due course. The Bill’s co-sponsors represent all the major UK political parties and every one of our four nations. Initiatives to put wellbeing at the heart of decision making can be found in many countries around the world. New Zealand’s wellbeing budget, led by its Treasury, invests billions in tackling deep-rooted social problems, including child poverty, mental health issues and family violence. Different approaches can be found from Gibraltar to Ghana, and from Malta to many other places, but inspiration for this Bill was found closer to home.
The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, passed by the Senedd in that year, was pioneering. It was the first legislation in the world to enshrine in law a duty on public bodies to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations. It created the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, who is responsible for promoting sustainable development. The commissioner, Sophie Howe, gives future generations the voice they currently lack here, and her recent progress report shows that the legislation is making a real difference. Our Bill, similarly, would create an independent commissioner for the whole of the UK, to represent those who cannot yet represent themselves. It would empower the commissioner to bring legal proceedings against a public body that is failing to fulfil its wellbeing duties. It is important to say that the Bill has carefully considered the Welsh experience and taken on the lessons learned, so that it is even stronger legislation, set out to be even more effective. For example it would strengthen the duty ensuring that wellbeing objectives are actually met.
In addition to the independent UK commissioner for future generations, I wish to highlight a few of the other key provisions in the Bill. It contains: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish national indicators that measure progress towards wellbeing goals and report annually to Parliament; a duty on all non-devolved public bodies to balance the needs of the present with the needs of the future; a requirement on companies of medium size and above to consider how their activities relate to the wellbeing of the UK; provisions for the  establishment of a joint parliamentary Committee for the future, to scrutinise legislation for its effect on future generations, to hold Ministers to account for short-term decision making and to report on future trends; and a requirement on public bodies to report on and seek to increase their preventive expenditure.
A study from Scotland illustrates the importance of preventive spending, finding that 40% of all public spending was devoted annually to alleviating social problems and tackling “failure demand”—demand that could have been avoided had earlier preventive measures been put in place. It would be insightful if the Government could provide an equivalent figure for England. Another study, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, found that poverty costs Britain £78 billion a year, with £1 in every £5 of Government spending making up for the way in which poverty damages people’s lives.
In conclusion, I am acutely aware that this Bill is concerned with preventive spending and the next generation when an urgent crisis is facing this one, yet as we have seen in the response of communities across the country, emergencies can bring out the best in us, and give us a common focus and a common purpose. The author Rebecca Solnit says that disasters give us
“a glimpse of who else we ourselves may be and what else our society could become.”
So, with the eyes of future generations upon us, this Bill presents Parliament with an opportunity to act today, for tomorrow. This Bill is not a panacea but it might just help us head in the right direction, by enshrining long-term thinking and the voices of future generations at the heart of decision making, precisely where they belong.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Lucas, Bambos Charalambous, Simon Fell, Dr Philippa Whitford, Wera Hobhouse, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hanna, Abena Oppong-Asare, Bob Blackman, Anna McMorrin, Kevin Hollinrake and Alex Sobel present the Bill.
Caroline Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 124).

Point of Order

Wes Streeting: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I questioned and criticised Airbnb for continuing to provide holiday lets at a time when people are being discouraged from using holiday properties to escape their normal place of residence in the midst of a crisis. In doing so, I highlighted that other holiday home providers, such as Sykes Cottages, were no longer taking bookings for the immediate period ahead. I have since been inundated with emails and messages from many very unhappy Sykes customers who tell me that the company is withholding payments that have been made to it at a time when many families, who are not now able to go on holiday, really need that money to get through what is a challenging period for most family finances. I wanted the record to reflect that. I hope those on the Treasury Bench have heard what I have said. In terms of the efforts they are undertaking to encourage responsible business at this time, I hope that that message will also be heard by the management of Sykes Cottages.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which I can well understand if yesterday he had been praising a company only to find that he was being inundated with emails to the contrary of what he said. He has put the record straight and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments. I am sure they will feed back to the appropriate Department the points that he has made.

Contingencies Fund Bill: Business of the House

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Contingencies Fund Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) (For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(6) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments  or Motions.
8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendment
(9) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (9) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(11) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(12) Paragraph (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order (and for those purposes paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 83G is not subject to paragraphs (6) and (7) of that Standing Order).
Reasons Committee
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order. Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
(14) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(16) Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83O (Certification of bills, clauses, schedules etc) shall not apply to the Bill.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Jesse Norman.)

Contingencies Fund Bill

Second Reading

Rosie Winterton: I wish to inform Members that under the Order of the House of today, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time. In order to be eligible for selection, Members should table amendments within the next five minutes.

Jesse Norman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, we are living in unprecedented times. The Government have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to mitigate and limit the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the United Kingdom. To that end, we have a coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan to support public services, equipping our doctors, nurses and other essential staff with the tools they require on the frontline in support of their work. It is a plan to protect businesses, jobs, wages and incomes through this difficult and uncertain period for the economy. At the heart of the Bill is a recognition that the Government must act swiftly and boldly to provide the resources necessary to limit, and ultimately defeat, the virus.
As the House knows, Parliament provides the Government with the authority to expend resources, capital and cash via the supply process. The process is begun with the publication of the main supply estimates, which we debate in this Chamber, and then the introduction of a supply and appropriation Bill. It is only once that Bill receives Royal Assent, usually in July, that Governments get the bulk of their resources, capital and, most importantly, cash to carry out their approved functions. Until the supply Bill passes, typically in July, Departments live on what is described as “vote on account” money. This money usually represents about 45% of the departmental spending on services from the previous year. It allows Departments to start spending from 1 April, and it normally provides sufficient funds to tide them over until the balance is delivered via the supply Act in July, as described. However, as events have been unfolding, it has become clear that additional departmental spending will be needed compared to last year, and for good reason. The scale and spread of the virus mean that we must act now to safeguard lives. The Government cannot afford to wait. No one in this House would want us to wait until July to deliver the resources that Departments need for the next financial year.

Desmond Swayne: The Bill is necessary because the economy has come to a halt; we have effectively halted it in order to put an end to this virus. There is a narrative that actually we could have toughed it out, and that we have sacrificed the economy for healthcare. That never really was a realistic alternative, was it?

Jesse Norman: The Government have not had any time for that narrative, nor has there been any decision in our mind other than to act as decisively, effectively and comprehensively as we can to defeat this virus and  to protect livelihoods, businesses, jobs and wellbeing. That is what we are seeking to do. I do not agree—if I may say so to my right hon. Friend—that the requirements that this Bill seeks to address would or could have been accommodated in any other economic circumstances. To move at the speed at which we are moving to offer the support we are offering demands the cash movement that this Bill is designed to achieve.

Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that the amounts that we are talking about in this Bill relate to departmental spending that may need to happen over the next few months, and that they do not relate to the balance sheet of the Bank of England or any of the lending facilities that have been made available to business?

Jesse Norman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This legislation, as I will go on to describe, relates to departmental spending. It as an advance against departmental spending that will be properly ratified, accommodated and acknowledged within the estimates process, as one might expect.
Departments—this goes straight to point just made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey)—need money from 1 April, and they need more than the House has already allocated to them via the vote on account. The Government cannot afford to wait until July to deliver the resources needed for the next financial year, and the Bill seeks to close that gap.
The House has long recognised that the Government sometimes need to act without recourse to the normal processes, which is why Parliament has historically provided for the existence and use of a contingencies fund. But Parliament has wisely limited the amount that can be issued from the fund to 2% of the previous year’s cash spend. For 2020-21, that amounts to some £10.6 billion, which would be more than adequate in a normal year. But, as we have discovered, we do not live in normal times. These times are without precedent in the modern era. Through this Bill, the Government therefore ask the House temporarily to raise the limit on the amount that sits in the contingencies fund to 50% of that expended last year; I should be clear that that is approximately £266 billion.
Let me go further and say—again, this is a response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—that this is not new spending and it is not a blank cheque. All advances will have to be repaid once the main supply estimates are voted on in the summer, when the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate where the resources have been allocated in the normal way. Nor does this represent additional Government borrowing. The Chancellor has said that he will update the Debt Management Office’s financing remit in April to reflect his recent announcements.
Quite simply, this Bill is about cash flow and the need to deliver the support we have announced without delay. It allows the Treasury to provide cash advances where they are urgently needed, and it provides for a safety net between supply estimates. This is an exceptionally short Bill, but it is an exceptionally important one in that it allows the Government to deliver the extraordinary package of support announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It solves a cash timing issue arising  from the current process, and balances the need for an urgent response to the unfolding crisis with the necessary parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
This Bill is yet another demonstration of the Government’s commitment to fighting the threat from covid-19—protecting businesses, jobs and, most importantly, our fellow citizens, from the ravages of this deadly disease. I wholeheartedly commend it to the House.

John Martin McDonnell: May I start by assuring the Treasury Bench that the official Opposition will support this Bill? I support the Government throughout, obviously, but as the Minister might expect, we will be constructively critical as well throughout the process.
This Bill, as the Minister says, will enable the Government to access the resources to tackle the crisis. I have to say, there is a sense of irony here, because only three months ago I hoped to be bringing forward a Bill for about £250 billion as well, for long-term investment in our infrastructure—but that is another story. It probably would have been supported as well, because it was infrastructure spend. Anyway, we will support this Bill, but we have the opportunity to raise some issues on the way in which the resources will be applied—forgive me if I do that.
We recognise that this is the gravest crisis facing our country that any of us in this House has known. We are debating matters of life and death, and the proposals that we make now and the decisions that we need to take in the coming months obviously deserve scrutiny, and that scrutiny should be welcomed on all sides. Last night, the Prime Minister was right to call for people to stay at home to protect our NHS and to save lives. We called for enforcement measures yesterday morning, and the Mayor of London and many others have been making private representations for greater clarity and greater action.
Clear and detailed guidance to employers and workers is needed on which workplaces should close. As we saw in the earlier response to the statement, a lack of clarity remains about certain operations, particularly within the construction sector. We have received reports from unions, particularly those representing construction workers, that there is utter confusion on the ground at the moment about what operations should be maintained and which workers should be on site. For anyone who has been anywhere near the construction industry or worked on site at any time in their lives, things have not changed that much in recent years. These workers also work in some of the most insanitary conditions, so we have to ensure that they are properly protected.
The Chancellor and the Government must act immediately so that every single worker has a protected income. We discussed that earlier today. We want to ensure that every single household is secure in their home, whether they rent or mortgage, so that no one who makes the right choice to stay at home faces hardship. Last week, the Chancellor set out an unprecedented scheme to underwrite 80% of the wages of all workers “furloughed”—as he put it—promising that no redundancies or lay-offs were needed and that the Government would do, “Whatever it takes”. Today is the time to deliver, with clarity and security for  everybody, including our most vulnerable, whatever it takes to keep them protected and safe. That is why we are supporting this Bill to enable the resources to be available.
Last night, the Prime Minister effectively shut down every non-essential business. I want the Chancellor and Treasury Front Bench to make it clear now that every single worker, in every single one of those businesses, will be covered by the 80% income protection scheme, and that if, as a result of that 20% cut in incomes, they fall below the thresholds for universal credit or housing benefit, they will be eligible for top-ups. I ask the question, will the Government consider setting a national minimum wage floor for the income protection schemes? That would protect the lowest paid, because 80% of low pay might result in some people being paid below the national minimum wage.
Will we now get more clarity on exactly when the income protection scheme will be operational? Will the Government also condemn employers such as Wetherspoon that have now stopped wage payments and told employees that those will not resume until the end of April? Some senior members of the Government have an influence over that particular employer, so we would welcome the Government making it clear to that employer that that he should pay his staff and that he should close so that that company can play its part in protecting the health of our community.
The Government cannot act only for workers who are furloughed. They must also step up for the many who will be having their hours reduced but not stopped altogether, by topping them up to at least 80% of their regular wage, or through some other scheme. When the Minister responds, will he clarify what will be the protection for workers who have been put on short time?
Sadly, many workers have already been laid off as a result of this terrible virus. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was extremely candid and honest last week when he said that he could not live on the £94.25 per week statutory sick pay. I do not think any of us can. How can the Government expect entire families to afford a week’s shop on that sort of income? Will the Government therefore increase the appallingly low level of statutory sick pay and ensure that all workers are eligible for it? So many are not at the moment. Will they also increase the £73 rate of jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance for disabled people? Will they also look at the even lower rate of carer’s allowance? Carers are expected to live on £66 a week.
As we discussed earlier today, there are 5 million self-employed workers in this country, many of whom cannot work from home. We desperately need a scheme that will be ready for them soon. It needs to guarantee them the 80% of income that others have been guaranteed. Whether it is a cabbie, a childminder, an actor or a plumber, there are battalions of self-employed out there who need their security. We need confirmation that a scheme will be brought forward not within days but within hours, to give them that assurance.
We also urge the Government to work with the construction industry and the trade unions to find a solution that covers the particularities of that sector—we have pointed them out before—with workers employed through payroll companies and umbrella companies. Most of them are forced into self-employment, and often exploitative self-employment of the worst sort.
I turn to housing. We welcome the moves to protect mortgage holders, with payment holidays now put in place for mortgagees, but we need the same security for renters and for the Government to understand the difference. For a renter, a rent holiday is not the same as a mortgage holiday. Rent is paid continuously during a tenancy, while mortgages have a fixed term, meaning that repayment terms can be simply extend. It is therefore important that the Government act to ensure that rents are paid, not merely that payments are suspended for this period.
We are extremely disappointed by the legislation published yesterday. Frankly, many believe that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to the country’s 20 million renters in 8.5 million households. It was not an evictions ban, as the Prime Minister promised. That legislation will not stop people losing their homes as a result of the virus; as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said, it just gives them some extra time to pack their bags. To be frank, it is just not good enough. The Government must look again; we urge them to look again.
There are also wider problems. Over recent years, austerity cuts have lessened the value of support available via housing benefit. The Government must immediately suspend the benefit cap and rid us of the bedroom tax that has affected so many families. We welcome the moves announced last week on local housing allowance, but the Government must go further and restore the local housing allowance from the 30th percentile back to the 50th percentile of market rates, as it was before 2010.
People will have made rental decisions based on their incomes, and they should not be penalised by the unforeseeable impact of the coronavirus, when we are asking people to lock themselves away. Now is not the time for families to be downsizing or sofa surfing with parents, grandparents or friends in cramped conditions. Many of us represent constituencies where overcrowding has become the plague of modern existence.
May I briefly pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan? His team has worked tirelessly and creatively in securing hotel accommodation to get London’s rough sleepers off the streets, though we would like to know more about the duration and the cost of the deal that the Government have procured with hotels. It is important that the Government act to keep households in their homes so that that attachment to work, school and study can continue seamlessly at the conclusion of this extraordinary period. We cannot have a situation in which, at the end of this, tenants have either depleted all their savings or, worse, have amassed large and unpayable bills. If this is the case, the Government will be deferring evictions only a few months down the road, so the suspension of evictions for private and social tenants should be extended, we believe, from three months to six months. Shelter has estimated that as many as 20,000 eviction proceedings are already in progress and will go ahead over the next three months unless the Government take action to stop them, and they must be stopped. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rises to his feet, he must be clear that there will be no evictions of any kind during this period.
In addition, we also believe it necessary to suspend all bailiff proceedings for the same period. Practically speaking, there are clear health and safety issues about bailiffs entering the homes of families who may be self-isolating. Furthermore, what measures is the Chancellor proposing for suspending payments of household utility bills? That was raised in the discussions this morning and we will support measures that are brought forward. During this period, we cannot have bailiffs and we cannot have disconnections of water, energy or internet.
What are the Government doing about those without internet access? Many people in our communities rely on libraries to access the internet, but now those libraries are closing. What measures will the Government bring in to ensure that people can get online, whether for benefit services or to maintain some form of social contact? These are huge demands being placed on the civil service, and I pay tribute to all those public servants throughout our public administration who are working day and night to establish these schemes. They are not often praised, but they are in this situation.
The civil service has been depleted by a decade of austerity. As extra demands are placed on, for example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, other civil servants are being redeployed. Are those recently retired or made redundant from the service being asked to come back to assist, just as we have invited other professionals to come back into the NHS?
Will the Minister also confirm that the current round of HMRC office closures and redundancies will at least be paused, if not reversed, at this stage? What adaptations have been made for those working in the mass call centres of HMRC and the DWP? Is the telephony technology there for them to work at home? Is there greater social distancing within the call centres themselves? We all know that universal credit cannot cope now, but its roll-out was again delayed in the Budget. Millions more households are becoming eligible for universal credit, housing benefit and other payments, so are the Government confident that the system can cope with this increased demand, because the feedback that we are getting from our constituents on the frontline is that they find it impossible because of the long waits to get through and have their case dealt with successfully. No one is blaming the civil servants; it is about resources and investment.
What are the Government doing to encourage businesses to take up business interruption loans, when some businesses see loans as less effective than grants for keeping them afloat? Is there potential for increasing the level of grants and extending their range? Have the Government considered our proposal that such loan agreements should include job retention clauses, which would mean that when businesses receive a loan, they can give workers the security they need in the knowledge that they will not lose their jobs? It is not much to ask of a business receiving financial support from the Government in this way that they work towards our overall objectives.

Kevin Hollinrake: The difficulty with what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that most businesses do not know the extent of this crisis and the impact it will have on them. It is impossible at this point to determine exactly how long this will last or how deep a recession might be. Is he not asking the impossible of businesses?

John Martin McDonnell: In the real world, that is exactly why trade unions have asked that when loans are given or support is provided through the jobs retention scheme, there is a requirement for businesses to sit down with their trade unions and work through a plan for the future. In that way, security could be given to workers, because they would be involved in determining that, and judgments can then be made at different stages of the business development process. We are looking for some form of assurances that will give wider security than there is at the moment. If a company is being supported by a loan or the job retention scheme, it is not much for them to sit down with their workers to work honestly and fairly on a plan for the future to see how they can work together to secure those jobs.
Consideration has been given to extending grants to many small businesses that cannot afford to take on additional debt. We would welcome information on how the Government will extend coverage by extending the range of eligibility criteria, to make the grants more flexible.
We also need clarity for workers beyond the retail sector—those on construction sites in particular, but also in factories, call centres, warehouses, distribution and other settings. What are essential workplaces? What is the clear definition? I think that many of these issues can be dealt with fairly readily in the discussions that the Government are having with the trade unions, but they need to be more detailed and on a more permanent, structured basis.
The NHS was promised budget increases over the next five years. We suggest that the Chancellor brings forward the funding for years two, three and four into year one. Can the Minister assure us that we will not have another weekend when doctors and nurses working in intensive care have to go on the media to beg for personal protective equipment and clothing? There were instances over the weekend, and we have heard assurances from the Government, but action is needed rapidly. Can he also assure NHS workers that they will get not only the equipment they need but the tests they need? The World Health Organisation has made it clear from the start that its advice is test, test, test. The scale and the speed of testing need to be addressed.
Can the Minister assure the House and the public that everything is being done to procure more critical care beds? I welcome the news that 7,500 recently retired staff have returned to the NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. The Government have begged retired NHS staff to return. We believe that the same must happen with social care staff. Chronic low pay in the care sector, with many paid just the minimum wage, means that staff have left for less stressful jobs in retail and other sectors. Those workers need to be brought back. They need the appropriate personal protective equipment and clothing, and they need proper recompense.
Many will have seen the devastating news from the Oaklands nursing home in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), where 16 of the 20 residents and seven staff have coronavirus symptoms. I was most concerned about the reports that, despite pleading for it, the home has been unable to source the proper protective equipment. Just yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley),  demanded an urgent action plan for social care—a system that looks after those most at risk from the virus. As the Chancellor said, our social care system needs whatever it takes. Whether that is residential care, domiciliary care or family carers caring for loved ones in their own home, the resources have to be there now. Can the Minister tell us how much has been allocated immediately to councils and care providers?
Let me turn to local government. I welcome the sectoral consultation that is taking place and the dialogue with trade unions across all departments. Councils have a key role to play as the guarantor of social care provision, but they too have been devastated by cuts and now have the responsibility of the hardship funds to administer. Will the Minister be clear what extra resources are being made available to local councils, especially as many are likely to start seeing drops in council tax and business rates revenue? What extra funding is being made available so that councils can extend council tax support schemes in this period as well?
Although we fully back the measures outlined yesterday, there are unfortunately some households where these measures could mean more abuse and even risk to life. This is where domestic abuse takes place. For victims of domestic abuse and for others, this home isolation will be terrifying. We need the police, refuges, mental health services and other social services to have all the resources and capacity they need. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, who has raised these issues repeatedly. We need a positive Government response that is backed by sufficient resources and full consultation.
Others, like me, have raised the issue of the charity and voluntary sector. Many charities whose work is essential in filling the gaping holes in our public services and our safety net are desperately worried about their finances. Charities dealing with the immediate response to the coronavirus and its effect on the most vulnerable need access to enough grants to allow them to scale up their operations. Others need to be assured that they can access the same level of support that small businesses are rightly getting so that they can suspend some of their operations without having to lay off their hard-working staff and can restart once the crisis passes. Can the Minister tell us what reassurances have been provided by the Government to the charity and voluntary sector? Will the Government work with the sector to find suitable reliefs in these unprecedented times and can the Government outline what schemes are available now to charities struggling with the loss of revenue?
On schools and education, I understand that schools remain open to the children of key workers and to vulnerable children, but only if no safe alternative is available. As for the universities sector, may I ask the Minister about the fees that will have been paid by students in further and higher education and what refunds and deferments will be available? Many students—in fact most students these days, because of tuition fees—work in term-time and during holidays, and that work will no longer be available to them. May I ask the Government immediately to reduce the interest rates on student debt to zero for the duration of this crisis to assist those students?
On transport, what provision has been made by Her Majesty’s Treasury to refund lost revenue for transport authorities, whether that is Transport for London or  those that run bus services across the country? On railways, I echo what my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport has said: we back the measures that will keep key workers and freight moving on our railways during this crisis, which has exposed, as he says, the fundamental weaknesses of the franchise model. May I also thank all the railway staff and bus workers who are keeping the essential parts of our country moving? Will the Minister assure us that all public facing railway staff will also have the appropriate personal protection equipment and clothing that they need? Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to making public transport free for key workers who are risking their lives every day? NHS staff are receiving free rail travel in Wales and a similar move is being rolled out in other countries, such as New Zealand. We would welcome that in this country.
Prisons were understaffed and overpopulated before this crisis. This is not just a question of resources but of safety. I welcome moves to escalate prisoner release schemes for those who do not pose a threat to our society, but the probation service was in crisis before this virus hit us and the lockdown announced yesterday complicates matters even further. Can the House be assured that the police and the probation service will have every resource possible to keep people safe and to monitor those who need supervision? I welcome the moves last week to release detainees from detention centres due to health and safety concerns. Can the Minister be clear about what extra resources are going in to protect people’s health overall?
I was brought up a Catholic. Our local parish priest optimistically calls me a lapsed Catholic, so I welcome any sinner who repents. I therefore reach across the divide and pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who yesterday said that
“many people who we considered to be low-skilled are actually pretty crucial to the smooth running of our country”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]
I also echo his call to the Home Secretary. The point has been made repeatedly by the shadow Home Secretary and many of our Members on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman asked for the new points-based immigration system to be reviewed, in his words,
“to reflect the things that we have learnt during this time”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]
Have the Government given any consideration to temporarily suspending no recourse to public funds, which is blighting so many people’s lives, or to allowing temporary access to benefits for non-UK nationals so that they can survive this period? That is important at a time when more and more people are out of work and unable to travel.
As a public service to all Conservative MPs, I say that the market does not distribute wages fairly or efficiently in a capitalist society, and there is no correlation between pay rates and the social value of many jobs. If there is one lesson that we learn from this crisis, maybe that will be the one that lasts the longest.
Just three weeks ago, I asked the Government to take a lead internationally in tackling this virus. It is vital that we are engaged in all global health and political forums and that we learn from best practice and share   solutions, because this virus respects no borders. By helping others globally, we help ourselves. By neglecting others, we neglect ourselves. Will the Minister assure the House today that extra resources are being made through the international development budget to aid the poorest countries in combating this virus?
I think we will look back at this period as an unprecedented moment in our lifetimes. I know that this is already a tragic time for so many, and all of us will be hurt by this, but I want us all to be able to look back with pride about what we did in this period—to be able to say, “We widened who was covered by our safety net when we had to. We protected people and their jobs and wages. We cared for people around us. We provided all the support that was needed and, as a result of that, we came through this all the stronger.”

Bim Afolami: This Bill, as the Minister said, shows decisive leadership by the Government and, indeed, by the whole House. It is supported by the Opposition parties. As the Minister explained, this is really a cash flow Bill. It is not a provision at this juncture for the extra £266 billion of Government spending for Departments; it is an advance to those Departments.
The first question I ask the Minister is, bearing in mind the advance, what is the Treasury’s current estimate of how much extra it thinks it will be borrowing when we come to estimates in July? That is something the House would like to consider and start thinking about.
Another point related to the fiscal and monetary management of this crisis, which I think this Government have done admirably, is whether the Treasury has done any thinking about the Government balance sheet, and in particular the balance sheet that will be looked at by international sovereign investors. Bearing in mind that this crisis is affecting every country in the world, have they done any thinking with our partners on whether money spent relating to this particular crisis may be somehow itemised differently on the balance sheet, rather than just being lumped in with all the other Government spending that may have taken place? If we could somehow delineate crisis spending and normal spending, that may well help investors, this House and anybody else in the future in trying to assess the fiscal health of this country and others. I think that is something the Treasury should consider.
However, there is a broader issue here. This is obviously thought about as primarily a global health crisis, but many people think about the economic impacts, and that is indeed correct. However, the health crisis and the economic crisis are intertwined, and I will focus, as so many in the House have today, on the self-employed, although this issue does not relate just to them.
This virus requires us to do social distancing, which is a phrase all of us have become so familiar with, although I do not think any of us knew it existed up until two to three months ago—all I can say is, bring back Brexit. To save lives, we are having to shut down major parts of the economy, and for people to save their own lives and the lives of others, they are having to shut down their personal economic activity. These people have families, houses and responsibilities; if they do not feel that they can meet those responsibilities, some may choose to  take the path we have asked them not to take. Some may choose to do the risky thing and not what they know to be right, because they are caught in this difficult conflict between health and wealth. The job of any Government in a responsible society—indeed, this Government have met this challenge—is to make sure nobody is faced with that choice. I think that principle has underpinned all of the response from the Treasury and should continue to underpin it when the Treasury comes out with its proposals for self-employed workers.
I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. I have been contacted by many constituents who are trying to use the business interruption loan scheme. Could the limit on unsecured lending be extended above £250,000? Many constituents have told me that they have been asked for personal guarantees above that threshold by the banks. Quite understandably, many are not willing to provide personal guarantees. Indeed, one asked me, “Bim, would you give a personal guarantee on a £500,000 or £1 million loan?” I said I could not say in all honesty that I would. Will the Minister consider extending that threshold for unsecured lending above £250,000—perhaps to £500,000 or £1 million?

Kevin Hollinrake: That is an interesting point. The position is not clear on the website, and it does need clarification, but I think that loans over £250,000 are ones that businesses could not get security for. This is the Government standing behind businesses that do not have other forms of security. I think that below £250,000 is where people can ask for reasonable security. However, my hon. Friend’s point about a personal guarantee is key, because it will deter many people from applying for these loans.

Bim Afolami: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. More broadly, the key question for the Minister is whether the Treasury is willing to adapt the scheme over the coming days and weeks as we hear more about the distinct problems and difficulties that there may be with it. That is not to quibble with the fundamentals of the scheme; it is a good scheme, and we need to recognise—indeed, I want to put on record—the fact that it was put together in record time. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and we need to give officials and Ministers credit for what they have managed to achieve, but let us try to improve the scheme so that it can be useful to more people, and addressing the issue I have raised is one way of doing so.
The final point I want to make is about tech start-ups—early-stage businesses. These are not necessarily all over the country; they tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country. Indeed, I have several people who work for them in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) cannot be here today, but I have been speaking with her, and there are many of these companies in her constituency. The nature of the support package that has been outlined is not particularly helpful for this type of company, because typically an early stage tech start-up deliberately incurs up-front losses as a result of heavy investment in research and product development. Such companies tend to rely on equity rather than debt funding, so the package that has been put in place is less helpful to them. The investors that back them usually back several dozen such companies and do not have enough cash to  put into all their portfolios or their portfolio businesses. There is, therefore, a problem—a specific problem, but an important one, because although the number of the jobs in the sector is about 6,000 to 10,000, these are the companies that drive innovation and will drive the creation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future. Bearing in mind the Government’s ambition for the country, we need to safeguard these businesses as much as we can.
I have been discussing with many in the sector a proposal to join with the British Business Bank to put together a £300 million not-for-profit fund—not a fund that will take management fees or try to make any money—to invest in roughly 600 start-ups, to provide working capital for nine or more months. I ask the Financial Secretary or one of his colleagues to consider meeting me and industry representatives to see whether we can get that sort of thing going. It is a specific sector of the economy, but an extremely important one.
Everyone recognises the enormity of the challenge. Everyone recognises the speed and complexity of what we have to do. The money in this short Bill is critical, but in the coming days—especially if Parliament is to rise by the end of this week—we need to do what we can to improve the schemes as much as possible. Once Parliament is out and does not sit for however long it may be, it will be much harder for Members to do that. I ask the Minister to take those points into account.

Richard Thomson: As many have said in the course of several of our debates this week, it is vital that we continue to work across party lines in response to the crisis. I reiterate here and now my party’s support for the Chancellor’s economic package for firms and workers that was announced on Friday.
Our attitude as individual Members to Government and what they should do, or even which Government should do it, determines in large part where we choose to sit in this Chamber, but the debates taking place now are very much subordinate to the task of deciding how to use our collective legitimacy and authority to guide, to direct and to steward the resources we are able to make available to protect the citizens we were elected to this place to represent. These are quite unprecedented times, the likes of which none of us has seen in our lifetime and which we all earnestly hope we will never see again in this or any other lifetime, but these extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. We all know all too well that lives and livelihoods are at stake. Significant policy changes in terms of support for the economy have already been announced, and yesterday this House took further important steps to protect the public by passing the Coronavirus Bill. Having made those changes to governance and policy, it is necessary also to make provision to support those changes in terms of supply through the Contingencies Fund. My party fully supports the steps that we are about to take to do that.
Although economic activity in the country will, of necessity, be curtailed for the duration of our response to the crisis, we need to maintain demand as far as it is possible to do so, and to be able to meet that demand where we can. We also need to make sure that we are laying the foundations of recovery, so that it can take place as soon as the scientific advice is consistent with  doing so. To that end, I commend to hon. Members the work the Scottish Government have undertaken, particularly pledges of grants to support business and the offer of various business rates reliefs.
The economic measures we take must give people the security to follow the very clear public health advice that has been given by all the Governments on these islands, and we very much welcome the distance the Chancellor has already travelled in introducing measures to allow that to happen. However, we must recognise that, notwithstanding all that has already been done, not everyone either has or feels that they have the financial security to stop working or, in many cases, the agency to tell an irresponsible employer that they will follow the Government’s clear advice to stay at home.
On the further support we can offer, we need to be doing something and more to support those on zero-hours contracts. We must also provide support for those who have seen their hours reduced and are not involved in the Government’s furlough scheme. The Chancellor and his team have been questioned closely today, including by me, about support for the self-employed. We must take the Chancellor and the Government at their word that they are examining the details of a package and striving to present it to us as quickly as they can.
There are 330,000 self-employed workers in Scotland. Although they may not always feel that they have the ear of Government or that they are as visible as some of the larger corporate entities in the business landscape, they remain the backbone of our economy, and they must not be left behind in the responses to this crisis. We will certainly watch very closely to ensure that they are not.
Despite the Chancellor’s answers earlier, the SNP continues to believe that using the tax and welfare system to put money directly into people’s pockets through a universal basic income would be the simplest and most straightforward way of getting crucial individual financial support exactly where it needs to go.

Bim Afolami: Does the hon. Gentleman regard universal basic income as not desirable for the longer term and advocate doing it only for a set period, or does he want it for the longer term?

Richard Thomson: I happen to believe that it would be the best way to ensure that we deliver money to those who need it over the longer term. I do not view it as a Trojan horse; I believe its merits would speak for themselves. But whether we believe in it ideologically or not, from a pragmatic perspective, it would certainly reduce much of the red tape in getting financial resources where they need to be. I do not think the issue of whether it should exist in the long term needs to divide us; I think we could agree that it is how we can best deliver support over the period ahead of us.
There are other areas of the economy that require our attention. Although support for buy-to-let landlords is welcome—I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I rent out a small flat myself—it would be more welcome if that financial support went directly to tenants, which would allow them security of tenure and keep that cash circulating in the economy. Other potential measures include increasing  statutory sick pay to the EU average, strengthening welfare protections, removing the bedroom tax and removing the rape clause.
When it comes to our transport infrastructure, we need to protect capacity. We saw yesterday welcome interventions in the rail industry and the train operating companies. My constituency contains Aberdeen airport, and the companies responsible for the ground operations there have been in touch with me. Support for the airlines is no doubt important, but so too is support for the airports and the people who work on the ground to ensure that the activity can continue. Our airports will be crucial in getting the country moving again once we are through this crisis. We need to prepare for the contingency of repatriations to the UK in the event that commercial airlines are not able to carry out that task. We also need to be prepared to cover those whose insurers will not pay out for coronavirus-related claims, whatever activity they relate to.
Those measures represent just some of what will  be necessary, but we need the resources in place to  take them.

Patrick Grady: It is right that the Government are bringing forward a whole range of support packages, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the other kinds of support that are needed. Does he agree that there is also a responsibility on employers to engage constructively with this and to look after their staff? It might be understandable that people placed on furlough receive an 80% cut in their salary, but I am hearing reports from some of our colleagues who are not physically present with us today that, for example, Newsquest publishers is preparing to cut the salaries of staff who are not being furloughed by between 15% and 20%. Does he agree that that kind of practice by businesses that are going to benefit from the Government support is a very worrying practice?

Richard Thomson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. People will be watching very closely to see how companies behave in this crisis and how they react to the support that is there. It is very clear that while some companies have behaved very responsibly, with a real social conscience and with a sense of duty towards their staff, others are not behaving as creditably. I am sure we will hear of more examples of that as time progresses.
All the measures that have been outlined come at a considerable commitment, but the costs—in financial terms, but, more importantly, in human terms—of doing nothing are very much greater to us than the costs of intervening. The response to covid-19 is one that will need all of us to make our own contribution. On behalf of my party, I pay tribute to the public servants, the charities and the many volunteers who will be working around the clock to keep people safe and comfortable over this period. I thank those in the private sector who are working so hard to keep other essential activities in the supply chain under way, and all involved in all spheres and tiers of government—local and national—who will be helping to co-ordinate that activity in the days and weeks ahead.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that it was important this week that we gave all those in those spheres and tiers of government the political permission to act as they need to in pursuit of the greater good. This Bill provides the resource to underpin those  permissions, and subject to good choices being made with the resource that is now available, it will also give us the ability to support businesses and families through this most trying of times. The Bill has our support.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am delighted to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who made some salient points. I endorse his tribute to the NHS and to all our public sector workers. I do not know if anybody has seen the news recently, but a terrible tragedy has happened in Spain, where elderly people in care homes were abandoned and left to die in their care homes by the staff. I cannot believe that would ever happen in the UK, and I think it shows how brave many of the people working in our public sector are when faced with these terrible crises.
I should first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I always do on these occasions. As well as being a Member of Parliament trying to stand up for the interests of my constituents—many businesses have contacted me over the last few days and weeks—I look at these matters from a business perspective. I have been involved in that business for 30 years, and when we had a board meeting on Friday, the first conversation we had—I guess like many businesses—was not about cuts to the number of people we employ, but about how much we could cut our salaries as board directors by. I think most board directors have an appropriately sensible approach to this. We all know this is going to be a very difficult crisis for many businesses. I pay tribute to the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary for putting together a package of support that is unheralded—not just in its size, but in its comprehensive nature and the speed with which it has been delivered.
The job retention scheme in particular was a massive relief to many business people. Back in 2008, we were faced with taking our workforce down from 200 people to 65 within 12 months, as the bottom fell out of our business and out of the market. The most destructive aspect of that—aside from the terrible human cost of sitting down with people with whom one had worked in some cases for decades and telling them that the business could no longer afford to employ them—was that it cost a huge amount of money to make them redundant. That puts the business in a critical condition, which means that more people have to be made redundant. I do not begrudge anybody the redundancy payments that were due, but for a private business that is a very difficult thing to have to do.
The job retention scheme insulates many businesses from that, because instead of having to lay people off or make them redundant, the business can say to them, “You can stay at home at the moment. You’ll continue to be paid a fair amount to get you through this short-term crisis, then we’ll bring you back into the fold.” That eases the financial pressure on the business in an important way. It is a really excellent scheme. There are of course some missing details, which I know we will get in good time, in particular whether earnings will include things such as commission and whether the Government payment will include things such as national insurance. Many businesses have questions that I am sure will be answered in good time.
The other element of the package is the business rate grant scheme, which many businesses have welcomed. Of course, many self-employed people, including sole traders and freelancers, are outside the scheme—a point that I will touch on in a second.
I want to raise one or two points about the business interruption loan scheme. Obviously we want as many businesses as possible to take advantage of the scheme, but one big concern is about security. The scheme is based on the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which included personal guarantees. I understand that the new scheme will not include them—I have been told that from the Dispatch Box today on an urgent question—but it would be helpful if the British Business Bank website said clearly that that is the case. It does not say that at the moment, which could deter some people from applying in the first place. All it says is that security can be taken
“At the discretion of the lender”.
I have had personal guarantees for most of my business life, and I think most people would expect a business person to have some skin in the game, but this is a different situation. It is very difficult to quantify the impact of this crisis on a business. The Government have rightly stated that there will be no personal guarantees, which I assume means that people’s family homes should not be put up for security either. That being the case, it would be helpful to clarify that point, because that would increase demand.
The other point is that at the moment the banks eligible for that scheme number about 40, but there are many outside it. Those not eligible for the previous British Business Bank scheme, the EFG, will not qualify for access to the current scheme. Therefore, customers of OakNorth, Aldermore or one of the many alternative providers in the marketplace today cannot access the scheme. The normal process for applying for that scheme is somewhere between six and 18 months, which is clearly far too long. I think that the Treasury has committed to try to accelerate that process—or the British Business Bank has—but it will still take a matter of weeks, and businesses cannot wait weeks for this money. They need it in a matter of days.
It is absolutely essential that we get that support to businesses now, so I politely ask the Minister whether he will look at that and perhaps get the Bank of England to set up a new scheme directly with some of those lenders, many of which are very bona fide lenders. Of course, the right checks and balances have to be in place, but these are authorised, regulated banks, so it would be good to ensure that all lenders can get finance to all customers.
The other thing about how business will view this crisis is how long it is likely to last. Businesses are much more likely to take a loan, from anywhere, if they think they can get through this and quantify the losses or how long their revenue will be affected. I worry about the current situation, because we are telling people that they can go to work as long as they cannot work from home and as long as they socially distance themselves when they get there. I think that was one reason for the confusion and why Filey in my constituency and many other beautiful market towns were packed out with visitors, who felt they could go to those beautiful places and socially distance themselves while they were there, which clearly they cannot if there are too many people  there. It is the same in a workplace environment. I can see that, because of the uncertainty about who can actually go to work—we have not restricted it to key workers or essential workers, to my understanding—lots of people are building houses on construction sites and whatever else they are doing. They are going to work because they cannot work from home and they feel they can socially distance.
From a business point of view, I would personally prefer to have a complete lockdown for 30 days. We know that, in China, after a full lockdown for 14 days, cases peaked, and after 30 days, cases stopped, and all the coffee shops, Starbucks, Apple and the car dealerships opened again. That gives us hope that we can tackle and defeat this virus within 30 days, if we do the right thing. If we are equivocal about it and it is confusing, people will continue to go to work and continue to spread the virus.
From my business perspective, a short, sharp shock is much more appealing. I would know that, if I applied for a business loan from the new scheme, I could quantify how much I would need, if I had the confidence that the timescale would be limited in that way.
I have a couple of other points that I think would be useful. Ideally, the Government should not have to step in to support businesses at any point in time. The markets should deliver that themselves, with finance coming from banks or investors through to businesses. Venture capital trusts have limits on how much they can put into businesses—up to £5 million on an annual basis and £12 million as a lifetime limit into a particular business. Because of the unprecedented nature of this crisis, it would be useful to double those limits so that venture capital trusts, which invest in many good businesses, can see those businesses through a tough time. Otherwise they will not be able to get the extra money into those businesses that they need. It could be a temporary change, and it would potentially save many businesses.
On the self-employed, we have understandably heard lots of calls for more help for the sole trader. Many different people in my constituency have contacted me. They desperately need some help, and I do understand that. Within that cohort are some very vulnerable people, including mortgage prisoners. I have corresponded with many mortgage prisoners, as have other hon. Members, and many are self-employed. They are in a particular situation in that their earnings are being very badly damaged now, and they have been paying huge mortgage rates for too long. Many of the mortgage prisoners’ loans have been sold to non-UK lenders—inactive lenders—and the regulatory oversight of those lenders is much reduced compared with UK lenders. In my view, it is an absolute disgrace that we allow UK mortgage customers’ loans to be sold to a foreign entity, over which we do not have the same oversight, so we cannot properly control the activities of those lenders. We need to bring all those lenders within the same regulatory scope. Some of those mortgage prisoners are on very high standard variable rates of around 5%, and even up to 6%. It is simply unfair . A year or two ago, we brought in a standard variable rate cap in the energy sector. I wonder whether the Minister could look to do the same thing in this sector to ensure that those people are treated fairly.
I do a lot of work with the all-party group on fair business banking. Most bankers do the right thing—the vast majority of banks and bankers I meet and have banked with over more than 30 years in business have looked after my business fairly. Clearly, that does not always happen, given the 2008 scandal in small business banking. It is time now for the banks to do the right thing and to work with the Government on the business interruption scheme.
Another issue is that the rates that banks charge on personal loans and overdrafts are not coming down, despite the reduction in base rate—in fact, quite the opposite. The Financial Conduct Authority, in its wisdom, decided that everyone who had an overdraft should pay the same whether it was an authorised overdraft or an unauthorised overdraft. It told the banks that they could not penalise people for unauthorised overdrafts, so everyone has to pay the same. The rate for authorised overdrafts used to be somewhere between 3% and 15%, and unauthorised overdrafts used to have a fixed daily charge and a much higher rate. So the banks made them all the same, and here are the rates being charged today for authorised and unauthorised loans: First Direct, 39.9%; HSBC, 39.9%; Lloyds Banking Group, 39.9%; Nationwide, 39.9%; and NatWest, 39.5%. It is simply disgraceful. Everybody is paying the higher rate. It smacks of a cartel, as well as profiteering and overcharging.

Jim Shannon: Last Friday, four or five businesses in my constituency came to see me, looking for help because of the coronavirus. The first constituent told me that he had asked for his loans to be reduced, but the bank—I will not say which one it was—said, “No, what we’ll do is charge you £100 for each amount of money that you’ve borrowed, and then we’ll charge you interest at 6% on top of that.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these difficult times, that is totally outrageous? The banks should be there to help, not to take advantage.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and indeed for all the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and for the many speeches he has made on the matter. I absolutely agree. The two best things that I have heard the Treasury say over the past two weeks—and there have been many—are, “We will do whatever it takes” and, “We are all in this together.” The banks should take that approach as well. I and many other Members of the House will be watching to make sure that this time the banks do the right thing and restore their reputation.

John Martin McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman has done some sterling work on this, so would he like to comment on the figures that are coming out on 6 April and the interest rates for overdrafts from HSBC, First Direct, M&S Bank and TSB? Nationwide have already gone there, with an increase from 9.99% to 39.9%. What does he think about that?

Kevin Hollinrake: I think it is an absolute disgrace. I do not think that the FCA saw it coming, which is one of the flaws of the regulator. The FCA has been criticised many times in this place, including by the right hon. Gentleman. It told the banks, “Right, you’re not going  to charge anybody any more than anyone else is.” But that let them all put their rates up to the highest level. It is exploitative and absolutely outrageous.
The banks need to look at this as a sector and start to treat their customers fairly, which of course is a basic requirement of the principles of banking, so the FCA should step in and look at this. In fact, I think it should be the subject of an inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority. The fact that the rates are not just high, but all the same, smacks of directors getting together in a room and agreeing a figure. It cannot be a coincidence that all the rates are exactly the same in this supposedly competitive market.
On commercial loans, it is right that the Government have negotiated with the banks to give mortgage holidays, which of course have to be paid back but nevertheless give borrowers vital breathing space. I think the same is true of some commercial loans, but the banks are saying, “We’ll give you a holiday only on the payment of the principal, not the interest.” Those paying for a commercial loan are paying much more on the interest than they are on the principal, which again seems grossly unfair if we are all in this together.
We are going to work together to try to get through this, so I call on the banks to look at this again, to be fair and to rebuild their reputation. The final way they could do that is by suspending legal action, certainly in relation to residential repossessions but also for repossessions against businesses. They should show forbearance and use the business banking resolution service—I am one of the people who have been working on that in recent months—which will be like a super ombudsman for banking disputes. They should defer any issues they have with their customers until that service is properly established, so that those complaints can be resolved fairly—fair to the bank and fair to the customer.

Edward Davey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). He made two points with which I wish strongly to agree. First, I agree on the need for clarity on people who can go to work: who are the essential workers? The issue is causing huge concern. If there are too many people on public transport because we are not leaving it for the essential workers, that is bad for the whole public objective of stopping the virus spreading. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that. The bad news is that people are almost going to be forced to stay at home anyway because business is collapsing. Let us take the construction industry, which the hon. Gentleman talked about. I am getting messages telling me that because mortar supplies are basically collapsing, people will not be able to do any construction. That shows Members how dramatic is the impact of what is happening out there. There should be clarity from the Government on that because leadership is important.
The second thing on which the hon. Gentleman is right—I really want to impress this upon those on the Treasury Bench, and we have heard other colleagues talk about it already—is the genuine accessibility of the loans that have been made available via the Bank of England. The Government trumpeted their announcement  and we all welcomed it, but I keep hearing stories of small businesses that find that, if they can get through to the bank—by the way, it is taking quite a long time, although that is not a complaint, because of course a lot of people are contacting the banks and I expect they are extremely busy—they have to give personal guarantees. At a time when it is very difficult for people to know how their business is going to pan out—how can they know that in such an uncertain certain time?—no one their right mind would give those sorts of personal guarantees. It is just not realistic for them to put their house and the whole family’s income and savings on the line. The Government are going to have to think again about the terms of the loan guarantee scheme. These are unusual times and the Government have made money available; rather than just giving a guarantee to the financial institution, they will have to find a way to transfer that guarantee to the business concerned. I know there are huge moral hazards with that—I get that—but if they do not, it is not going to work.

Bim Afolami: On that point, has the right hon. Gentleman come across the same thing as I have? I have found that the people who have been asked to give personal guarantees are often the ones with the lowest debt—indeed, no debt—in their businesses, and the people who have found it easier are those who already have a big debt facility with a bank that can be easily extended. It is almost a double punishment for those who have been prudent in managing their small businesses so far.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is that old saying, “If you borrow a lot, you are able to borrow more,” whereas those people who have run things prudently are finding it a problem. This is a really crucial issue and the Government must give it some urgent attention. In the exchanges on the urgent question that I asked earlier on the self-employed, there were some welcome statements about the loans being available to sole traders and the self-employed more widely, but I do not think they will be able to access them, because they will not be able to give those sorts of personal guarantees. Given that cash-flow is going to be king, certainly until the Government come up with a solution for the self-employed, they will have to have access to some money. If that is just a loan on their personal bank account, with the interest we have been talking about, that is not going to work for people. People are going to be in real trouble. I welcome what the Government have done, but they need to look at how it is operating in practice—and look at it fast.
People out there remember what happened in the financial crisis. They remember that this House said, across party lines, that we must bail out the banks—that the banks could not collapse and the financial system had to keep going. They were pretty upset, because a lot of them took cuts in their own income and then saw that although some bankers lost their jobs—we knowledge that—many did not, and the banking system sort of recovered and looked like it was treated with quite a lot of generosity through our taxpayers’ money. When we hear stories now about ordinary people who have put their lives into building their businesses not getting help from the banks because the banks are getting in the way, I have to tell the banks that they have to sort themselves out, because this House will not be able to resist the political pressure. We need the banks in our  society, right? No one is suggesting that they do not play a critical role, but if at this stage, after we helped them out 10 years ago, the banks do not come to the rescue of small businesses, sole traders, the self-employed and ordinary people, they will reap a whirlwind. I really worry about that, because I believe in the banking system, but the banks have got to step up to the plate.

Bim Afolami: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is it not also important to recognise the nature of the schemes—that is, that they were put in place by the Treasury, the banks and the Bank of England all working together? The terms on which the banks are operating were agreed by all of them, so we need to ensure that all those parties—the Treasury, the Bank of England and the banks—collectively realise what needs to happen, rather than us necessarily saying that it is just the banks that are making it difficult; the structures and the terms are actually very important.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and backs up the thrust of what I am trying to say. The banks have been given access to free money. They are being looked after by the Bank of England through this extension of the Bank of England’s balance sheet, so they are doing okay. So why are they not stepping up to help the rest of the economy? There are some really quite serious questions on this issue. I hope that the Government say in response to this debate that they, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are going to look at this situation, because it is just not good enough. I want to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said; this is vital to all of us, and we need to send a message to those who are running the banks that we are expecting them to step up. It is time that they did their duty, right?
I actually want to come to my speech, because that was just a response to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). I want to talk about the Bill in front of us—I know that is a bit unusual—as well as the supply process of which it is a part, and then I will give some thoughts on the economy.
On the Bill, will the Minister tell us why the Treasury chose to change the percentage limit of the contingencies fund, which is normally set at 2% of total authorised expenditure in the preceding year, to 50% until the end of 2020-21? In absolute figures, the amount before this Bill would have been £10.7 billion. That has gone up to £266 billion. I hope that the Minister can explain why. It does not seem unreasonable, given the pressures on Departments, but it is quite a big change. I am not against it—let me be clear that I will be supporting the Bill today—but it would be good to put on the record, for the House and for history, why that figure has been chosen. When people look at this situation in the future, they will need to know why that decision was taken.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that this was not an increase in expenditure. Well, I hope that he meant to say that it is an increase in expenditure in that it takes account of commitments that the Chancellor has made both in the Budget and since the Budget. If I have understood correctly, there is a big increase in  expenditure because we need one—for the health service, our social care system and other parts of our public services that need the cash now.
I have another question for the Minister. If these contingencies are being given to Departments so that they have the cash they need, is the money also being given to local authorities? I want to underline this point: local authorities are on the frontline now, and they are having to spend money all the time on a whole range of things that are completely unbudgeted for. They are confused about the proposals for business rates, whether they are going to get any income in, what money they have to give out and all the rest of it. Local authorities are slightly unclear about what is happening. I hope that there will be genuine desire and action on behalf of the Treasury to get some money out—on account, if you like—to them so that they have the cash flow to ensure that they can provide the extra services that they are being asked to provide. It is essential that we hear that local authorities are getting the support that the Whitehall Departments seem to be getting.
I said that I also wanted to talk about the supply process. This legislation is part of the almost anachronistic supply process in this House. I am afraid that I am a bit of a geek on this. In 2000, I wrote a pamphlet called “Making MPs Work For Our Money: Reforming Parliament’s Role In Budget Scrutiny”. It is a cure for insomnia, so I do not necessarily suggest people read it, but in it I tried to argue that this House does not really have sovereignty over the Budget. We look at these Bills when they come along and we nod them through, but our processes of examining draft budgets and estimates are shocking. In my pamphlet, I made the comparison with all the OECD countries, and this House has the worst processes for examining draft budgets and measures such as this Bill—that is worrying. I do not wish to resurrect the Brexit debate, but it was supposed to be about parliamentary sovereignty and I used to say, “I wish we had some.” That is because this House rarely, if ever, looks at the estimates properly, analyses them in Select Committees and makes proposals about draft spending decisions. Other Parliaments do those things quite easily—the Swedish and New Zealand Parliaments are good models. Our approach undermines the value for money and undermines what we are here for, and we really need to look at the estimates procedure.
That is why this Bill looks so weird in many ways; it is called the Contingencies Fund Bill and we are not used to doing this sort of thing, because we have given up control over supply—it is just nodded through. The last time MPs voted against a spending request of the Government was in 1919, more than 100 years ago We have given up properly controlling the draft estimates. Although I will be supporting the Bill tonight, because it is really important that we let this one through, I just want to say to the Minister that I hope we can reflect on this. I raised this issue when I was in government and tried to get the then Chancellor to look at it. There was a flurry of excitement and then the dead hand of the Treasury said, “No way, we are not giving up control.” That was the wrong move, because control can be exercised with greater transparency. I hope that that may be one thing that comes from this experience in this emergency situation.
Let me end with some reflections on the economy, where we are at and the lessons we are taking. I talked about the importance of the banks really delivering,  given the agreement with the Government and the Bank of England. That is probably the most essential message from me tonight. There are some longer-term things and possibly some relatively short-term things to address, one of which is the way we do the Bank of England’s quantitative easing. That is monetary policy, where we are, in effect, printing money and sending it out. That happened after the 2008 crash and it is happening now. I am not against it, but I just say that the way it works is not some sort of technical, politically neutral, value-neutral system; it has implications for economic equality in this country, because the money tends to go to people in the City—the financial institutions. It does not go to ordinary people and ordinary businesses. So if we are going to get things right this time and have quantitative easing, I urge the Minister to let us have a debate about how those mechanisms actually work, because in crises we do not want economic inequality worse; we want to make it better. These technical things sound as though they are available only for pointy-heads in the Treasury, but quantitative easing is a political issue and we have not debated that. It has massive social and economic consequences, and we need to make sure that there is democratic accountability on them, and that they are properly understood and work in the interests of society.

Kevin Hollinrake: Has that not been solved to some extent with the job-retention scheme, because the Government will issue bonds to fund that scheme, they will be bought by asset managers and the QE will buy those assets off the asset managers? That is the circular nature of that scheme. So this time round, as the Prime Minister said a few days ago, the support would be directed at the people, in terms of keeping them in work and in pay, rather than simply funding the banks. To a certain extent, this time QE does support jobs and real people.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has a point and he is right to take me up on that. I think that there is an improvement, but I do not think we have debated this in the context of QE and the monetary side of the policy response. I think we need to do that, because we need to unpick some deep issues here and I do not think this House has understood that. Although I am a big fan of the independent Bank of England, and I do not think we should interfere with the setting of interest rates, I do think QE raises some political questions which are not technical and require accountability.

Bim Afolami: On QE and how that would be done, we must make sure that it does not become too inflationary, that being the problem if we have a distribution network straight to the real economy without mediating it through banks.

Edward Davey: I half agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think inflation is going to be the problem; people have not got any money. This form of QE is often called helicopter money and perhaps that is the right move now, and we need to be debating it.
I have a final comment to make and then I will sit down. When we reflect in a few months on this crisis and what has gone on, we will have to look at some of the underlying assumptions of our economic models. I am not saying that we should rip them up—I do not believe that at all—but how the state underpins and   works with the market is really important. What I mean by that is that there is an assumption that the market can do it all, that the market is fantastic and that Governments should come out of the way, but markets only exist because of Governments. Regulations and laws make markets and there have always been those.

Kevin Hollinrake: indicated dissent.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Without rules and regulations on competition, on fair play for employees and on consumer protections, markets will not work. Where there is no consumer protection, consumers do not have faith in the products and services being provided, so the markets cannot work. I absolutely think that we need to reflect on that, because I do not think that the model has been working well enough. I will end on that comment, because I hope that we will learn from this and have a proper debate about how our economy will work in future.

Derek Thomas: I rise to speak on the Contingencies Fund, not least because the Isles of Scilly transport system—I have mentioned this once already today—is desperate for a contingencies fund. I will set out why, and then how, local departments and Government Departments might help with their own contingencies fund.
The Isles of Scilly is 28 miles off Land’s End; 2,200 people live there and depend on the transport system for everything they need. The transport system is entirely run by private operators, with no help from the state—we have been working to try to address that. The community on Scilly rely on this transport for absolutely everything, including, in some cases, non-emergency medical travel.
Much of the transport serves the remote population all year round. There is aviation, freight transport and inter-island transport, which includes the school bus and transport for free bus pass holders and everybody else who needs to move between the five inhabited islands all year round. That is made possible only by the vibrant, successful tourism sector, which ordinarily starts with vigour this week. Many Members tell me, “I have just been on my holidays on the Isles of Scilly”. They will understand how remote but how precious this set of islands are.
As we expected, the demand for tourism has collapsed dramatically, and rightly so, but so far in all the measures that have been announced, very few actually help. For example, the help with wages is based on the figure for the previous month. As we start the tourism industry on Scilly now, there is no record of wages for the previous month. If we lose these people, who have the right kind of skills and tickets to operate on these boats, the boats and vessels cannot continue to work, even when we get past the coronavirus outbreak.
I listened very carefully to the Chancellor’s response to a question I raised earlier, knowing full well that the measures so far do not really help with any of the issues faced by the transport operators on Scilly. He suggested that local authorities are in a position to help, and that is welcome. This is where I get on to the issue of a contingencies fund for Government Departments. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Council of the  Isles of Scilly, Cornwall Council and the Department for Transport have a contingencies fund to underwrite the running costs of each of the operators serving Scilly so that they can survive this difficult period and be there to be part of the recovery, once we have beaten coronavirus? The truth is that if any of these operators collapse, the state will have to step in, and it is not for the state to run these essential services, in my understanding. It is far better to enable them to survive these three or four months, or however long it may be.
This is a critical issue for very many families and business owners, and more clarity is needed from a Government who have rightly said—I have supported them from the outset—that they would do whatever is needed, and whatever it takes. Will the Minister please take this to the Treasury and find out what can be done quickly to ensure that these businesses last even beyond the end of this month? The situation is critical.

Liz Twist: I want to touch briefly on the situation of charities and their funding in the context of coronavirus. I am aware that charities have already been in conversation with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about funding to allow them to assist in responding to the crisis. So many people face huge need and social isolation. Just some of the factors affecting those people are funding for food banks, which is falling because of the current situation, as are donations; funding for listening services; and funding for care services, which are needed more than they have ever been.
Charities face huge challenges, and they, too, need contingency funding measures if they are to survive and assist our communities as we face this challenge. Many of them are losing income because of the need to close their charity shops and the cancellation of fundraising events. Will the Minister confirm that charities should be eligible for the same business interruption measures as other business organisations? Will he look again at the trading income threshold, which, as I understand it, requires 50% of income to come from trade?
Charities need a stabilisation fund to help them to stay afloat and assist our communities, and I hope that that will be made available to our charities in the context of this contingency funding. Will the Minister confirm that they will be eligible for support to pay their staff, as other employers are? It is vital that we retain the infrastructure of our charities if we are to get through this situation and survive into the future.
There must be emergency funding for frontline charities that are supporting the response to coronavirus to ensure that they can remain afloat and provide that service. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that, and I hope he will respond thoughtfully and positively to the points that she has made.
We face a huge issue as we move, quite rightly, into greater social isolation. Charities such as Age UK Gateshead, which covers my constituency, and Samaritans have a real and positive role to play in countering the mental strain of loneliness and isolation, which many  people will undoubtedly face in this situation. I ask the Minister to ensure that charities are given the funding that they need.
While I am on my feet and I have, I hope, the Minister’s ear, I put in a plea for funding for the self-employed, particularly those in what I would call microbusinesses—the dance schools, the musicians, the driving instructors and the pest controllers—who are contacting me, even as I have been sitting here, to say, “I just don’t know what I am going to do.” They not only have no income, but they do not qualify for the various grants and loans. They are left trying to claim universal credit, but the huge backlog of claims means that, with the best will in the world, no payments will be made quickly. So many of them have contacted me in desperation in the last couple of weeks. They have lost not only their main income but their future business, and they will have to rebuild from the start. Can the Minister press the Chancellor to provide funding for that group of people?
Finally, I want to flag funding for transport services. The coronavirus has produced a huge change in the usage of our transport systems, which are vital for the future. I know that many transport authorities are looking at how they can maintain transport services, but it is important that we work sympathetically and flexibly to maintain our public sector transport system.

Chris Matheson: I want to start by echoing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The urgent need for provisions to support the self-employed gets greater by the day, and my concern is that desperation is turning to anger. The “What about us?” sentiment will be driving that anger, understandably, and making the situation a whole lot worse. I urge Ministers to bring that support forward.
We are also promised support for renters in both the social sector and private rented sector. That has not happened yet. Again, as days and weeks go by, the desperation and uncertainty become greater, and I urge Ministers to bring that forward. My right hon. Friend was right about the Government apparently going back on a commitment to bring forward provisions to ban evictions. If someone is evicted, where are they going to go at the moment? There is no reason at all why that provision should not be brought forward. If we are serious that people have to stay at home, let them stay at home by making sure that they are not evicted. It shows either misjudgment in making the promise in the first place, or misjudgment and bad faith in breaking that promise. I urge Ministers to take that back to the Prime Minister and ask him to make a change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was absolutely correct in what she said about charities. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have brought together Cheshire West and Chester Council, West Cheshire Voluntary Action and lots of charities and church groups to try to provide a co-ordinated service to all those who need support at the moment. But as my hon. Friend said, the charities are running out of money because their commercial activities are running down, which is affecting their income. That is calling into  question their ability to deliver services to the most vulnerable, which they do much of the time and which is often taken for granted. Right now, with everyone expected to stay at home, the ability of charities to deliver those services is perhaps limited anyway, but as this situation hopefully gets better, we will look to charities to get those services up and running straightaway. At the moment, without the support for charities, their ability to do that is diminished.

Kevin Hollinrake: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point on rented accommodation? He is right that at the moment, all landlords should show forbearance when people are in difficult financial circumstances, and the Coronavirus Bill will increase the notice period to end an assured shorthold tenancy from two to three months. He is a fair man, so does he agree that we must be fair to both sides? If a tenant is unfairly withholding rent from a landlord, and it takes eight months to get a case to court at the moment, that is not very fair on the landlord. We have to be fair to both sides.

Chris Matheson: I do accept that, but that would be the case in normal circumstances anyway. We are talking about giving people peace of mind during this national crisis and ensuring that people do not even have to live with the worry of being chucked out on the street or into temporary accommodation. That is my concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington reflected on his childhood in Liverpool and on his priest considering him to be a lapsed Catholic. That reminded me of my mum and dad, who also grew up in Liverpool, albeit a couple of decades or more before my right hon. Friend. The formative period of their childhood was the second world war, when they were both young children, suffering the bombings in Liverpool and the uncertainty of the war. We all know that the second world war in Europe ended formally on 7 May 1945, but my mum and dad did not know that—they had no idea when the hostilities would end and things might start to get better. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I reflected that that is the situation in which we find ourselves now.
We have no idea how long this crisis is likely to last. That uncertainty drives desperation, anxiety and as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and my good friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, business uncertainty. That is why it is essential that the Government are clear in their statements and oblige other businesses—we have talked about the banks; I want to consider insurance companies—to ensure that they play their part. If we cannot plan ahead, we will not know how to address the problems, and it cannot simply be down to the Government.
I make that point because insurance companies are not living up to their obligations. I know of businesses in Chester that have been told that their business contributions to insurance do not apply because coronavirus was not a notifiable disease at the time of the outbreak or because the Government had only suggested, as was the case last week, that events did not take place rather than saying that they must not take place. As I mentioned at Question Time, for events, conferences and sports that have a long lead-in time to prepare, it would help if the Government were clearer now that those businesses  could not get back up and running for four or six months and that insurance companies should ensure that their policies kick in.

Neale Hanvey: The hon. Gentleman talked about the future and how we recover and rebuild after the crisis has passed, but does he agree that things have changed utterly and that footing the bill for covid-19 in the years ahead cannot fall to the people, and that the banks certainly should not be rewarded, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) suggested, with quantitative easing? It is important that we get this right. When we start to rebuild, it is important that people and organisations that have avoided and evaded tax are called to pay their fair share.

Chris Matheson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The world will change, but only if we lead and make that change ourselves. As regards quantitative easing, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, I would be happy to give all that money to local authorities and let them spread it out to places that really need it.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is a good friend, and has respect across the House for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, is right to talk about the banks, not only now, but in the future, when this is all over. We must ensure that they do not get up to the same games by looking at businesses and saying, “Your income’s declined, so we’ll start foreclosing on some of your assets.” That has happened before. I call on Ministers to give close attention to the way that banks operate, not only now, but afterwards, and ensure that they play their part.
In this crisis, there will be heroes and villains. We will remember the heroes and we will also remember the villains. I call on employers such as banks and insurance companies not to make their staff go to work if they are in a vulnerable group. I am getting complaints from constituents that they are being forced to go to work. Mike Ashley and Mr Wetherspoon should not flout Government advice just because their bottom line might be affected. We will remember the villains. I say, “Don’t be a villain at the end of this” because hopefully, those companies and corporations will receive the short shrift they deserve.

Bill Esterson: Desperation was the word used a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and, prior to him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It sums up the feeling of many people for many reasons. I think it also underpins what the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) did. I wish he was two metres from the Minister to demonstrate good social distancing in this place. He was right. This debate is about improving the schemes as far as we are able to do so, as part of our contribution to scrutinising the Bill.
My first point, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is about construction sites. We have all seen the pictures, and some of us have passed examples today, of construction workers working in big numbers  in close proximity. That cannot be right and it is certainly not what was intended by the Prime Minister’s guidance. Perhaps the Minister can take that point on board and consider how that situation might be prevented. It is a very serious matter, not just for those workers but in terms of spreading the virus elsewhere. We must all remember that, even if we are fit and healthy and do not become sick ourselves, it is not about the individual, but who we pass it on to.
On banks and loans, the problem, as has been stated by a number of Members, is that loans mean debt which cannot be repaid without the certainty of an income. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester just made the point about us not knowing the end date. If people do not know the end date, they will not be able to plan to pay the loans back. That is a real problem. If we then add on the uncertainty of having to provide personal guarantees, it becomes extremely problematic for many businesses to take advantage of the loan scheme. The suggestions made by Members for how the loan scheme might operate are really important, and it is really important that the Government go away and look into them.
On the behaviour of banks, in other debates we have heard descriptions of pharmacists and food retailers hiking up prices. The banks are doing exactly the same thing with interest rates. That cannot be allowed to continue. I thought the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was going to suggest nationalising the banks as a way forward. He was at one stage channelling his inner Marxist for the benefit of some in the Chamber. [Interruption.] There is agreement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the Front Bench. The point is that the taxpayer bailed out the banks. People paid the money back through higher interest rates in the financial crisis. They are now about to repeat that behaviour at a much more dangerous and difficult time in our history. There has to be intervention by the Treasury, in whatever shape or form, to prevent that and to ensure that the banks behave responsibly, provide support and do not put apply onerous terms, whether through personal guarantees or ultra-high extortionate rates of interest.
There is also the trust issue. Businesses do not want to borrow because of their past experiences. During the financial crisis when I was running a business, I had the experience of having my overdraft facility recalled overnight. We were lucky that we were able to cover that out of personal savings, but very many businesses were not able to do so and went to the wall. People suffered grievously—some took their own lives. We have debated that many times in this Chamber, and we do not want a repeat of that over the coming months and years after the immediate crisis has passed. I therefore urge the Government to intervene now to get that right.
As well as taking advantage of the Government’s employee retention scheme, businesses will need to pay additional costs such as rents and insurances. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester made the point that businesses are being told that they do not qualify for business continuity insurance. The same applies to income protection for the self-employed and small business owners, because this disease did not exist when their policies were written. Those issues need attention. The  vast sum of money that the Government are making available provides the opportunity to look at some of the other costs for businesses to see whether there can be help beyond that suggested for employees. Grants are certainly a part of that. Given how long this situation might last, the size of the grants will need to be constantly reviewed so that they are sufficient.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about grants. The biggest grant, of course, is the job retention scheme—that is a grant. It is Government funded, and there is no requirement for employers to pay anything towards it unless they want to do so, and they can top it up to that 20%. Therefore, will he concede that the scheme is a very important initiative by the Government and that it will be welcomed by many businesses?

Bill Esterson: Absolutely. It is important, and I certainly welcome it. None the less, there are some challenges with it. The fact that it is not available for the March payroll is a big problem for many businesses. We have already seen a significant number of businesses close and many workers laid off who will not now be eligible to be part of that scheme. The Government, totally understandably, have used examples of furlough schemes elsewhere in the world, but it will be difficult for the scheme to deal with the nature and the scale of this crisis.

John Martin McDonnell: What we were trying to establish in our discussions with the Government last week was equality of sacrifice. Yes, workers and the Treasury have realised that there will have to be some sacrifice, but we were expecting some contribution from employers themselves. An hour ago, 400 workers at Tristar in my constituency were laid off. Those 400 drivers were told that they will get paid 80% of their wages by the Government and they have been laid off for three months. We expected the employers to contribute to that 20%, but, in this case, that will not be paid. The crisis is falling on the shoulders of workers, rather than on businesses. There is no equality of sacrifice in a number of these companies, some of which are being ruthless.

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that some employers do not behave in a way that we should be able to expect them to behave given the nature of the crisis. We have heard other examples of large companies behaving in a way that is irresponsible and, frankly, downright wrong.
In addition to what my right hon. Friend says about employers not paying the 20% element of the wage replacement scheme and taking advantage of it, it is also the case that, for employers who wish staff to go on to short-time or part-time working, or reduced hours of some sort, the scheme does not apply. There is a real challenge for businesses in those categories, too.
That brings me on to the self-employed and this point about desperation. People are desperate now. We have debated that a number of times today and over the past few days as well. I just do not get the sense of urgency in this place. We are in here, and away from the real world. The same applies with Whitehall. I just think that, sometimes, people here do not have a sense of just how  desperate things are when two members of the same household are both self-employed and have no money. They cannot put food on the table. When the Chancellor says, as he did this morning, that he is worried about the scheme for self-employed going to wealthy people, I say, as indeed did the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in his urgent question, let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get a scheme in place and let us make it comparable with what the Government have offered to employees.
I want to say just a word or two about food supply and how the fund might apply there. There will be challenges around security of food supply; obviously, given the closing down of international transport links, that will be a challenge. We heard about the pressures on supermarkets. Some of the behaviour in supermarkets has been completely unacceptable, and the same applies to pharmacies. I hope that some of this money will go to ensuring security of deliveries, to protecting retail workers, to making sure that food and medicine get to those who most need it, and to helping pay for deliveries. The same applies to the supply of PPE, which hon. Friends have spoken about.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is right to raise the issue of helicopter money; at some point, that is something that the Treasury should consider. Any scheme, whether on PPE, food or access to funds, is only as good as the information out there, the awareness of the scheme, and the immediacy of access to it. The Government need to do much more to ensure that people know what is available in all those areas. The gov.uk website will carry that information, but lots of people and businesses do not know that it is there.
There is a real imperative on the Government to work much harder on the information that is getting out there, and on access to what is being offered. Television and radio will lose their commercial advertising; there is a great opportunity to replace it. I can give an example of the power of really good advertising: the video put together by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust respiratory department. It was one of the most powerful pieces of advertising about the need for people to stay at home that I have ever seen. The BBC showed it; I think Sky might have, too; and it had viral attention on social media. The Government need to produce advertising of that quality to demonstrate what is available in a range of areas across society. Some of this money can be used to deliver on that agenda. Information and proper access will ensure the most effective use of this enormous necessary injection of funding.
The debate has been an opportunity to bring together the issues. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take them to all his colleagues across Government, as appropriate. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that 1919 was the last time there was this sort of scrutiny; that was the year of the Spanish flu pandemic. We will not vote against the measure this time, but let us hope that, this time, it is effective, and that the money gets through as quickly  as possible.

Anneliese Dodds: This has been a very wide-ranging debate on a Bill that, though very short, is of course critically important, so it  is important that we talk about its different elements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set out, the official Opposition support the Bill, but it elicits substantial questions. The first is about the different aspects of the expenditure; the second is about the process for delivering it; the third is about the process for overseeing it; and the fourth is about the Bill’s role in relation to the rest of the financial decision making cycle. I will try to touch on those aspects briefly.
First, we have had a wide-ranging debate on the measures. I will be very brief, so I will not be able to pick up on every issue that was covered. There has been discussion of NHS and social care spending. We still require more transparency about the additions to that spending, particularly around the targeting of PPE  and testing. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said, there are still many issues on social security. For example, we have no clarity about exactly what the hardship funds provided by local authorities will be spent on. Will it be just council tax relief, or  will it be more? We really feel the lack of the social fund here.
Of course, the problems for renters continue, as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, many issues faced by charities are not dealt with by the sources of support that have been announced recently. I hope that the Minister listened to her recommendations and will take them up.
We have had a lot of debate about self-employment. We need those measures put in place as soon as possible. There was discussion about the scope of the measures, and the idea of not funding those self-employed people who already have resources. We seem to have one approach for the goose and another for the gander. For example, the system of loans is not conditional, whereas in some other countries it has been conditional on certain activities undertaken by the firms. We need to be fair.
On salary support, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, it is essential that we keep as many people in work as possible. My party strongly agrees with him and has pushed for this measure. It is terrible for people if they lose their job, and terrible for the company because of all the associated costs and disruption. We need responsible behaviour from companies. We do not want to be talking about the villains after they have committed their villainy; we need the Government to call them out and to act. The Health Secretary did so eventually in relation to Sports Direct, but we need action much more quickly.
We need more clarity about vulnerable workers. We still have pregnant women and people with severe asthma being told they have to go to work, they do not have any choice. Clear guidance is needed on that and on insurance.
We need clarity on support for specific industries, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, talking about transport and the travel industry in the Scilly Isles. He is right that that is a critical problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said, talking about the construction industry, we need more pressure from Government on the critical issue of safety at work. What we are seeing all around us is immensely disturbing.
Again, we need more clarity on the business interruption loan scheme. Are personal guarantees required or not? If they are, when are they required? We have to ensure that a clear message comes through on that and on the British Business Bank and how quickly new banks are being brought into a relationship with it. Before, I heard days, not weeks. Which is it? We need this to be sorted out as quickly as possible. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) asked a number of pertinent questions about the banking system that we need to look at here.
There are big questions not just about elements of the spending but about its delivery. As my hon. Friends have said, many organisations that were already fragile are having to spend resources without knowing exactly how those resources will be backfilled. Such organisations include local authorities, NHS trusts, schools or groups of schools, multi-academy trusts, transport providers and charities. I am very concerned that we have seen organisations stepping into the breach to deal with areas where there is not appropriate central Government support—or was not initially—and not being appropriately recompensed. For example, district councils have stepped into the breach and tried to co-ordinate volunteering, support food banks and so on. Will they receive the support they need to backfill those costs? It is not clear, and it should be.
Regarding the process for this Bill, I want to make it clear that the official Opposition will continue to offer to work with Government on these measures, but it vital that we have continued accountability. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about the pause in accountability that could occur after Parliament rises. I believe we need to ensure that accountability is continuous. We have some good cross-party working and cross-party discussions; issues have been placed on the agenda not just across parties, but by different Members within the Conservative party. It is important that continues, so I hope that there will be mechanisms to ensure that.
We will need further revisions to the package, at the very least by July. There will be lasting costs as a result of the crisis that are not provided for in the Bill, such as the costs of all the medical procedures that are postponed, the reduced tax revenue for local authorities, and of course the human cost, which is enormous. What will be the impact on children’s education? We must take an earlier look at those matters than necessarily what would occur during the normal financial cycle. These medium-term costs have to be dealt with.
Above all, in future Budgets we need to focus on building resilience. Currently our response to the crisis is more expensive because of the lack of resilience in our society and our economy. Take all the debate about people who are self-employed: a big part of that arises because our social security system is so unfit for purpose that it simply cannot support people’s incomes, not just in terms of its parameters, some of which to do with housing costs have been changed while many have not, but because of the infrastructure—the enormous waits for universal credit and the fact that so many families and individuals in our country, after a long period of income stagnation, simply do not have the resilience to cover any last-minute costs. The salary support system is taking so long to deliver at least in part because of  HMRC’s lack of capacity. We really need to get a grip on many of the developments in the labour market over recent years that are making the response more difficult—not least the growth in bogus self-employment.
Many people are sacrificing an enormous amount to try to deal with this crisis and ensure that its impact is lessened as much as possible. It has been an unequal sacrifice. We need to ensure that we are never in this situation again, and that means a longer-term approach to our public finances than we have had over recent years.

Jesse Norman: With the leave of the House, I will speak again. I am grateful to all Members who contributed to what, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, was a very wide-ranging debate. In fact, it was so wide-ranging that it barely focused on the measure before the House. However, I commend those who discussed the Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, and—let me say this very straightforwardly—I am very grateful for the expressions of cross-party support from the Opposition parties. That has been crucial to the way the Government have thought about and framed our response to this crisis.
The Bill is another key element in shoring up the very wide package of measures to fight the covid-19 outbreak and, as the House has recognised, it represents a proportionate legislative response to recent events. Of course, it is proportionate in part because it will last only for one year; it is not designed to run longer than that.
I will start with the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), because he addressed the topic of the Bill; I am grateful to him for that. He made a series of important points. On whether the banks are really stepping up, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, we will know by the end of the process who have been villains and who have been heroes. I do not think the public will be shy in reaching conclusions of their own, and I am sure there will be plenty of quantitative bases for that when the moment comes.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked why the number we will vote through today has been raised to 50% from 2%. That is a very important question. The reason is an anticipated escalation in the need for cash under—this point was made widely by colleagues across the House—conditions of radical uncertainty. It is also fair to say that it is not clear beyond any peradventure when the House will reconvene, and we have to accommodate the possibility of a delayed restart. As one might imagine, no assumption is made, but that possibility has to be contemplated.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether this constitutes an increase in spending. This is not a spending matter; it is a cash matter, and he needs to be aware of that. To reassure him on the question of local authorities, this does include spending that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will make as part of the usual estimates process.
The right hon. Gentleman described his work examining processes for reviewing and considering Budgets, but this is not a Budget, so it does not fall under that. However, it is worth saying that we have an evolved system. It is a system that involves a lot of scrutiny—  repeated days of looking at main estimates and supplementary estimates—but of course it is also a system that gives considerable authority to the majority party at any given time, and that is what constrains the ultimate outcome.

Edward Davey: I hope the Minister is right on the banks, but my main point is about the estimates. Actually, we have only three days to debate the estimates. I have attended estimates debates in this House over the last 20 years; when we have estimates days, we never debate the estimates. That is my point.

Jesse Norman: That is a different point. My point is that Parliament has plenty of opportunity to scrutinise spending. If it does not do that, that is a choice that it makes.
The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was about whether this Government believe, or any Conservative Government have ever believed, that markets can do it all. Let me assure him that no Conservative Government have ever believed that, and this one certainly do not believe that. At the risk of invoking one of my great heroes, Adam Smith, the position is that commercial society is a dynamic evolution in which forms of property are supported and recognised in law and then used to become the basis of profitable market development. That is how our system has evolved over many decades, and the state is integral to that process for all the reasons the right hon. Gentleman has described, so this is a way of agreeing with him.
May I turn to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Again, I thank him for his support for the Bill, and I think that constructive attitude is important. He is right to call this the gravest crisis we have known, certainly for this generation. A strong theme in his speech and those of others was the need for more communications; it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Of course, we understand that on the Government Benches. During the debate, the House will be pleased to know, I got a text from gov.uk referring me to the coronavirus website. That is a direct intervention of a kind I am not sure I would approve of outside the context of a national crisis, but one that is very welcome in that context. It shows evidence of and bears testimony to the belief we have in this very important response and in the need for communications.

Bill Esterson: I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for highlighting the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I raised about communication. The point about the gov.uk website is that not everybody knows about it, and a further point is that not everybody has access to the internet, particularly some of those most at need—older and more disadvantaged people—and that is where some of the other routes for getting information out there are so important.

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Member for that point, and he is absolutely right. One role that every Member of this House can have is to spread the word among constituents to make sure that this is widely understood.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the importance of consulting the trade unions. He will know that there have been consultations   with Frances O’Grady and other trade union leaders, as well as with the Mayor of London, to try to build public understanding and a shared view of these issues.
A final point I would make about what the right hon. Gentleman described is that we have had statements on the Government’s response, two urgent questions, an Opposition day—we have one tomorrow—and two pieces of legislation in the last two days alone, so there has been every opportunity for parties across the House to question and interrogate us. As colleagues have been kind enough to point out, the Government have been working at tremendous pace, with every hour of the day being exploited for the purposes of trying to get the right outcome, and where we have imperfection, as it were, we will try to make this as good as we can over the next days and weeks.
Let me, if I may, move on to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). He asked what extra the Treasury will be borrowing as a result of this, and the answer is that this is a cash item, as he will recall. The debt management remit will follow, and we will set out the Government’s borrowing plans. He raised an interesting question about whether money spent in response to this crisis could be itemised differently in the national accounts. That is an interesting idea, and I thank him for it. He highlighted the impact of tech start-ups, and he is absolutely right.
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for supporting the Bill. I think he is absolutely right to talk about the need for business recovery. We do not share his excitement about a universal basic income, in part because it does not actually hug the need across the population as well as a well-functioning benefit system, and that is what we have tried to do. It is a live argument on both sides. Of course, there are parts of the spectrum, notably those on the state pension, where we have something close to a universal income already in place, although not necessarily at the level that people would have expected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) persuasively and interestingly illustrated the choices faced by Government and businesses through his own business, and I thank him for that. My understanding of the personal guarantee issue touched on by many is that the circumstances for the business loans are to be agreed between the lender and the individual. There might be some element of personal guarantee, but not as relates to the primary residence. The desire is to build the flexibility and potential availability that comes with that, but without compromising people’s ultimate wellbeing.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for his comments. Through his speech today and in his remarks in Treasury questions, he has registered his intense concern on this issue, and I thank him very much for that.
Let me wind up by saying that this is a proportionate legislative response to the crisis and that it seeks to close an important gap in cash flow in the estimates process. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).

Contingencies Fund Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Contingencies Fund Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be issued out of, or paid into, the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to increasing, in relation to any time before 1 April 2021, the percentage specified in section 1(1) of the Contingencies Fund Act 1974 to a percentage not exceeding 50%.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.

Contingencies Fund Bill

Proceedings resumed (Order, this day)
Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, 10 February)
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Eleanor Laing: I wish to restate to the Committee that I will call Divisions only when they are really essential. As always, the Chair will listen to the debate and form a judgment on whether to exercise that discretion. I am reminding the Committee now, as we reminded the Committee that sat yesterday, that today the bar is a high one and that arguments in favour of going through the Division Lobbies will need to be very persuasive.

Clause 1

Expenditure on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

Stuart McDonald: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause1,page1,line2,at the beginning, insert “Subject to subsection (3),”
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 2 which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page1,line7,after “persons” insert
“from not only Caribbean but also from other Commonwealth countries who arrived in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973 and persons who have a right of abode or settled status (or who are now British citizens) and who arrived to live in the UK before 31 December 1988,”
This amendment clarifies that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is not literally limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth.
Amendment 2,page1,line9,at end, insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (4), modifications that must be made to the scheme before subsection (1) comes into force are set out in sections [Responsibility for the operation of the Compensation Scheme], [Consultation on simplifying the application process], [Time limit], [Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps], [Legal assistance], [Restrictions] and [Standard of proof], and [Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal].
(4) Subsection (3) does not prevent payment of interim awards under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This a paving amendment which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme before final payments can be funded by money provided by Parliament.
Amendment 5,page1,line9,at end insert
“, taking into account the impact of those difficulties on the family life of those persons”.
This amendment would require the scheme to take account of the impact on the family life of people who encountered difficulties in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Responsibility for the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme—
“Within two months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must arrange for operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be the responsibility of an institution other than the Home Office.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to move the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to an institution other than the Home Office.
New clause 2—Consultation on simplifying the application process—
“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process.
New clause 3—Time Limit—
“No time limit applies to when applications for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme must be received.”
This new clause would ensure that no time limit can be imposed on when applications should be received.
New clause 4—Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps—
“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause would require a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the scheme.
New clause 5—Legal assistance—
“The Windrush Compensation Scheme must make provision for the reimbursement to applicants under the scheme of their reasonable costs of legal assistance in making applications for compensation under the Scheme.”
This new clause would allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme.
New clause 6—Restrictions—
“(1) Compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be denied to any individual on the basis that they have a criminal record.
(2) Awards of compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be reduced on grounds that the individual failed to contact the Home Office at an earlier stage.”
This new clause would modify the restrictions on the payment of compensation under the scheme.
New clause 7—Standard of proof—
“No requirement may be made of applicants for a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, including any claims relating to—
(a) loss of earnings
(b) reimbursement of private medical fees,
(c) reimbursement of international student fees, and
(d) loss of access to banking.”
This new clause would apply a civil standard of proof to claims for compensation under the scheme.
New clause 8—Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by way of regulations for claimants to have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against any determination issued under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought on the grounds that the determination was not in accordance with the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause would allow claimants to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against determinations made under the scheme.

Stuart McDonald: We need the Bill to pass this evening so that compensation can continue to be paid to the victims of the Windrush outrage. I dearly want that to happen, and I encourage all who may qualify for compensation to seek advice and to make claims. Ultimately, ensuring that compensation can continue to be paid is all that really matters this evening.
However, this Committee stage gives us a short opportunity to probe the Government on various aspects of the scheme where we think improvements can and should be made. Some of those suggestions will be all the more important given the findings of the lessons learned review that was published last week. The report represents an utterly damning indictment of Home Office policy over many years and should represent an absolutely pivotal moment—a turning point—in how Governments, and indeed Parliament, develop and debate immigration policy, as well as in the role that considerations of race must play in policy development. As the review points out:
“The department didn’t consider risks to ethnic minorities appropriately as it developed the policy. And it carried on with implementing the scheme after others pointed out the risks, and after evidence had arisen that those risks had materialised.”
This was not just a simple mistake, in the way we usually use that word; it was really an act of pretty outrageous recklessness.
This debate is understandably overshadowed by the coronavirus crisis and takes place in an understandably sparsely attended Chamber. All of that is completely understandable, but it means that this is not the appropriate moment for Parliament to have its final say on the lessons learned review. Therefore, probably the most important ask I would make of the Government today is that they make a commitment to find a suitable future date in Government time, on a Tuesday or a Wednesday afternoon, so that we can have a full day’s debate, with full and proper scrutiny of the Wendy Williams review and its implications. The period of profound reflection called for by her review should happen here in Parliament, as well as in the Home Office.
Against that background, I now turn briefly to the specific amendments and new clauses we have tabled, which are largely self-explanatory, so I can go through them in fairly quick order. Amendments 1 and 2 are simply paving amendments, and allow us to make the key points we want to make through new clauses 1 to 8.
New clause 1 makes a simple but fundamental point. As I argued on Second Reading, it is surely not only pretty crass but counterproductive for the Home Office to be responsible for operating the compensation scheme. If an institution ruins someone’s life, their faith in the compensation scheme is surely not enhanced if the very same institution then sets the rules and makes the judgments on compensation applications. That is even more the case if someone still has concerns that the same institution could do further damage to them or their life. That is exactly how it is with the Windrush compensation scheme.
I repeat that I want people to come forward and to apply. I say to the Minister that making the scheme independent of the Home Office will undoubtedly increase uptake and interest in it. Ultimately, given what these people have been through, how can any of us in this House criticise them for having concerns about providing information to the Home Office? Making the scheme  independent is what the Windrush victims and campaigners have been asking for, so even at this late stage I urge the Government to think again about the institutional framework.
New clause 8 provides an alternative opportunity to introduce an independent safeguard through a proper, independent appeal to a tribunal system. Applying for compensation in this way is a full-blown and complicated legal process. The overall sums for the taxpayer, although not insignificant, are not huge either, particularly given the sums we have been talking about in recent days. However, they could and should be pivotal and life-changing for those who are obtaining compensation. This is also about the significance of the scheme and the importance of getting it right. All of that justifies proper, independent judicial scrutiny of controversial and contested decisions.
New clauses 2 and 4 are designed to encourage the Home Office to continue to consult and make improvements to the scheme as we proceed. The Minister has engaged previously, and he has made changes, and we encourage him to continue to take that practical approach.
More significantly, new clause 4 seeks further consultation on the various restrictions, tariffs and caps that are part of the scheme. Clearly, there was extensive consultation prior to the scheme being launched and I do not criticise any of that for one moment. That was valuable work, but I submit that everything now has to be reviewed in the light of last Thursday’s report. That report puts this scandal in a very different light from others where compensation has been awarded and from where practice may have been copied. Such was the flagrant disregard for the impact of Home Office policies, it surely is right that we revisit all the limits and restrictions on the losses that can be recouped. Quite simply, we must look again in the light of last week’s report.
New clause 2 seeks simply to further improve and simplify the application process. That is all the more important if the Government continue to resist our calls for legal aid to be available. That brings me to new clause 5, which calls for the cost of legal support for making applications to be reimbursed. The forms may be as close to simple as they could possibly be, but even if that is the case, the process is still not an easy one. Assessing and proving losses of this type is not an easy process, as any civil litigation lawyer can attest. Again, it is not just about complexity: it is about the profound importance of the claims for those individuals and the necessity to give them faith in the process.
New clauses 3 and 6 contain important points of principle. New clause 3 says that the time limit for compensation claims should be removed. The Minister has already acted to push back the deadline, which I welcome, but given the extraordinarily slow rate of progress and the lack of trust that people still appear to have in the Home Office, I ask him to remain open to the idea of putting that date back further still. As both the lessons learned review and the earlier National Audit Office report pointed out, the Home Office is still not actively looking for victims outside the Caribbean countries. I hope that that will now change, but in the meantime it is eminently possible that there will be victims in other countries who will not discover that they have a claim until years down the line. That is why the cut-off date must be removed.
New clause 6 makes two important points. First, it challenges the Government to explain why compensation could be ruled out in some circumstances where the applicant has a criminal record. If I seriously injure somebody on the roads or at work, I cannot get out of paying compensation simply on the basis that the victim had a completely unconnected criminal conviction, regardless of how serious that conviction is. I should not have that excuse, and nor should the Home Office. I simply do not understand the logic behind that restriction, and I urge the Minister to try to explain it. The other part of new clause 6 challenges reductions to compensation payments on the grounds that losses could have been limited through early contact with the Home Office. Again, that takes us back to the issue of trust raised in connection with new clause 1, but here it is an even more powerful point. If even now people are expressing reluctance to go to the Home Office, imagine how much greater that reluctance would have been at the height of the crisis. People suddenly found themselves out of their job. It is easy for us to sit here today and say, “Well, if they had contacted the Home Office, they could have sorted out their status and everything would have quickly been fine.” But we know fine well that people contacting the Home Office were just as likely to wind up in immigration detention or subject to removal directions. If somebody has been out of work for six years because of the Windrush scandal, they should get six years’ worth of wage loss, and that should not be reduced on the basis that they could have asked the Home Office for help at an earlier stage and sorted things out.
New clause 7 might seem more technical, but it seeks to rectify what I thought was a startling section in the compensation scheme guidance for caseworkers. In the caseworker guidance for those making decisions about applications, there is a section on the standard of proof. I think most people would assume instinctively that the standard of proof would be the ordinary civil standard, and that section of the guidance opens with instructions to caseworkers:
“You should take a holistic view of the claim where there is a lack of supporting evidence and decide the claim on a balance of probability. This means you must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the claimant meets the relevant criteria”.
So far, so good, but it then sets out four exceptions, as described in new clause 7, which include wage loss claims, for example, which are obviously a significant part of the process. The guidance at that point states:
“In these cases, the claimant must provide clear evidence and you must be satisfied so as to be sure that they meet the requirements for these awards. This means that you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before making an award in these cases”.
It may be that that is a clumsy and poorly worded attempt at simply suggesting that the caseworker should seek more by way of supporting documents in such cases. If that is the case, then fine, but the guidance still needs to be fixed, because it cannot possibly be appropriate to be demanding the criminal standard of proof. If, by my negligence, I caused somebody significant wage loss, they would simply need to prove that wage loss in the balance of probabilities, even if that was a claim for millions of pounds. Day in, day out, up and down this land, massive payments of wage loss compensation are made subject to proof on the balance of probability, so   it cannot be right that victims of the Windrush outrage are being pressed to meet a higher standard of proof. I call on the Minister to rectify that issue.
In conclusion, the amendments and new clauses contain suggestions that seek to enhance the compensation scheme, not to undermine it in any way at all. I will not be pressing any of the amendments or new clauses to a Division, but I hope the Minister will engage with the ideas on that basis.

Diane Abbott: We are debating this important Bill in the shadow of the terrible existential crisis of coronavirus. However, it would be wrong to let the debate go past without sharing the perspectives of large numbers of the Windrush cohort on the arrangements for compensation. As was said in the Windrush lessons learned review:
“Members of the Windrush generation and their children have been poorly served by this country. They had every right to be here and should never have been caught in the immigration net.”
When we talk about compensation for the Windrush cohort, it is important to note that we are not talking about an act of charity; we are talking about people who were always entitled to be here and are owed an apology, as Wendy Williams said, as well as compensation.
I begin by making the point that it is important in going forward with Windrush compensation that we look beyond the Caribbean. In the lessons learned review, Wendy Williams pointed out that the Department’s historical cases review focused solely on people from the Caribbean and excluded anybody with a criminal conviction and a sentence of more than 12 months. We have seen that the legislative changes that apply to the Windrush generation also apply to other nationalities from the new Commonwealth. While the Windrush scheme is open to all Commonwealth nationalities, the narrow focus of the historical cases review means that the taskforce did not proactively contact non-Caribbean nationals in the same way that it did Caribbean nationals. I will return to the question of the Windrush compensation scheme and its outreach in a few minutes.
The Windrush compensation scheme is to be applauded in principle, but its record in practice, I am afraid, is lamentable. The scheme was unveiled in April 2019. By most estimates there is £200 million in the scheme and no upper limit on claims. That is to be welcomed, but since it was unveiled in 2019, only 1,108 claims have been made and only 36 people have received money. I could probably find 36 members of the Windrush cohort in my own borough of Hackney, let alone the country as a whole. Only £62,198 has been paid out. Those are shameful figures, and in their response to the new clauses, I want to hear from Ministers what they intend to do about the shamefully low pay-out.
As was said earlier, it is not surprising that people are reluctant to come forward, because their experience of the Home Office has been a punitive one. Some of them may be frightened that they could end up in a detention centre or worse. We in the Opposition believe that the Windrush compensation scheme needs a proper national campaign to encourage engagement among possible Commonwealth claimants. After all, I think £4 billion was spent on the EU settlement scheme. We need to spend comparable sums on outreach for the Windrush compensation, because this is a cohort of persons who came to this country quite a few years ago, and unless  we do the outreach—positively, and with more resources behind it—and encourage them to claim, the danger is that they may never get the compensation to which they are entitled. Although of course their heirs and estates may get some of it, that is not the same as people getting an apology in their lifetimes, but also compensation.
I have said to the Minister and officials that I am happy to help with that outreach work—not as an apologist for the Government, but as someone who is very anxious that people should get what they are entitled to. The reason I think it is so important that people get what they are entitled to is not the money. As I have said before in the House, in the end, the cruellest thing for the Windrush cohort was not the problems, the difficulties, the possibility of deportation and all those practical things. The cruellest thing for the Windrush generation was the humiliation of being told by the British state that somehow they were not British or were trying to mislead the state in that matter.
This is a generation—I know something of it as my own parents were part of it—who came here with their UK and Colonies passports and believed that they were British. I will argue that it is the humiliation that cut to the quick. I have had various meetings in this House with members of the Windrush cohort, and that is the thing I come up against time and time again: how humiliated and hurt they felt to be, as it were, rejected by what they had always regarded as the mother country—a country they came to after the war to help to rebuild.
It is important to stress how poor the take-up has been and to say that Ministers must do more to encourage better take-up. We think that Ministers should consider putting the compensation scheme on a statutory basis. We also think it is important to stress that it applies  not just to persons from the Caribbean but to people who came from other Commonwealth countries before January ’73 and people who had a right of abode or settled status and arrived to live in the UK before  31 December 1988.
We also think it is important that, in moving forward on the compensation scheme, which is so important to the people who have suffered, we look at all the important aspects of family life that were severed by the Windrush scandal, whether that was people being deported, people’s children not being able to establish their right to be here or the misery of people seeing their parents thousands of miles away, having been consigned to deportation by what seemed to them a very cruel state. I remember visiting Yarl’s Wood detention centre last year. There were women there who were married to British men and had British children but who, because they were caught up in the Windrush scandal, found themselves quite unfairly, having committed no crime, in a detention centre, and there were very many such cases.
We will be supporting the compensation scheme, because we think it is important that the money gets to the victims as soon as possible. The Opposition are happy to help in any way with outreach to encourage people to claim. Clearly, with the current public health situation, we cannot have meetings about it and so on, but there are other means—provided, possibly, by new media—by which more could be done on outreach.
The compensation scheme is important, but Ministers should not labour under the delusion that it draws a line under the iniquitous injustice of Windrush. Ministers should also not labour under the illusion that it is some act of charity. This is a scheme providing long overdue compensation for a cruel and unjust fate that befell a generation who came here with the best of intent to help this country in its time of need after the war.

Kevin Foster: I thank the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for their constructive speeches and thoughts. As the shadow Home Secretary just reflected, we are talking about people—particularly those who came here before 1973—who are British. They are British, they viewed themselves as British, and then they had a reminder of some of the prejudices they experienced when they first arrived. The scheme is not about granting people citizenship but confirming the status they always had. When we debate this issue, we always need to make the point that we are not granting them citizenship; they had it and have done for nearly 50 years.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn. I hope to give clear assurances to the Members who tabled them on some of the issues raised and how they formed part of our thinking during the development of the compensation scheme. I will start with those tabled by the Scottish National party before turning to the official Opposition. Amendment 1 would pave the way for the new clauses that would modify the Windrush compensation scheme before final payments are made. I also recognise that amendment 2 intends not to prevent any interim payments from being made. It has always been our priority to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible rather than only at the final resolution of a case.
New clause 1 would move the operation of the Windrush compensation scheme out of the Home Office. I understand hon. Members’ well articulated concerns about the Department that caused the issues facing these individuals deciding on their eligibility to receive compensation. The Home Office is determined to learn the lessons and right the wrongs experienced by the Windrush generation. I reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that the compensation team is working hard to ensure that people get the compensation they deserve. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the House last week, we will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the Home Office protects, supports and listens to every single part of the community it serves.
I also noted the request for a substantive debate on the lessons learned review. If I recall correctly, when the Home Secretary was at the Dispatch Box last week, she indicated that we would almost certainly look to do that at future moment when we are not constrained by the circumstances around this debate.

Diane Abbott: Is the Minister happy with the very low level of pay-out from the Windrush compensation scheme thus far?

Kevin Foster: No, I want to see more getting the compensation they are entitled to. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and why we would have looked to have done more engagement events to reach out to those affected, as she touched on in her remarks. That has been inevitably curtailed by the situation we face. We have extended the scheme for another two years—it was to end in April next year, but it has been extended to April 2023—because we want more people to come forward and apply to it.
I will come in a moment to some of the ways in which we are looking to engage and get to more people. Hopefully, the next set of statistics produced will show that, for example, some more significant compensation awards have been made since the first statistics were produced. We are careful not to put out statistics that could identify an individual and what they may have received, because that is not an appropriate way to go about things as a Government.
Let me return to new clause 1. Moving the operation of the compensation scheme from the Home Office would risk significantly delaying payments to claimants. That is because the first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility, which is linked to an individual’s immigration status. It would be difficult to decouple this process from the Home Office, which is the Department that confirms this status. We have, though, established an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. The independent review is conducted by the Adjudicator’s Office—a non-departmental public body that is completely independent of the Home Office. The adjudicator can look at, among other things, whether the Department has followed its policies and the use of discretion by the Windrush compensation scheme.
New clauses 2 and 4 seek to require the Department to launch public consultations on applicants’ experiences of the application process, and on the scheme’s limits, tariffs and caps. I reassure Members that our approach to designing the scheme was informed by 650 responses to a call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to a public consultation. We also held several public events, and the previous Home Secretary appointed Martin Forde QC—an experienced barrister on all aspects of health law—to advise on the design of the compensation scheme. There are 13 categories under which people can claim compensation. The scheme awards compensation according to actual losses, as well as tariff-based awards. Although some categories of award have an upper limit, there is no overall cap on the amount that an individual can receive in compensation under the scheme, nor a set budget limit on payments to be made.
New clause 3 would see the scheme left open indefinitely. Let me reassure the House that this Government are committed to ensuring that all those who wish to make a claim are able to do so. This is why we announced last week that we were extending the duration of the scheme until 2 April 2023. It is also why we announced the launch of a national communications campaign and a £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations to promote the Windrush taskforce and Windrush compensation scheme. However, as I said on Second Reading, there is a balance to be struck between setting a date far enough in the future to enable people to feel confident that  they have time to make their claim, but soon enough to  encourage people to put in their claim and get the compensation that they are due. The Government believe that the two-year extension provides this, but there remains the option to extend the duration if that is required. I say in response to the point fairly made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that we would not close off consideration. However, we think it is right to have a timeframe in order to encourage people to come forward and make their claims.
New clause 5 intends to allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme. The team have worked proactively to ensure that the design of the claim forms is simple and easy to understand, and they were tested with users to ensure that legal assistance is not required. The introduction of this clause might serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of potentially vulnerable individuals and to charge them for unnecessary support to complete a claim. Should claimants need support, the Home Office already has provision for a contract with Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice. We will soon be launching a procurement tendering process to select an organisation to provide free independent advice and support to claimants for the duration of the scheme up until April 2023, and the £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations announced last week to promote the compensation scheme includes provision for advice services.

Stuart McDonald: I take the Minister’s point about the work that has been done to try to make the scheme simple, and to have a tendering process for services that will provide advice. But this is not just about the form; it is about the process of putting together sometimes complicated evidence, particularly for the bigger awards. Surely there is a possibility that the Government could consider making available even a small panel of certain firms with expertise in this area—for particularly difficult or high-value claims. That is just something to think about.

Kevin Foster: I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. That was one of the areas covered when I met the independent adviser, and his advice is clear: he believes that the system is set up in a way that means people do not need specialist legal support to make a claim. The compensation team will work with the claimant to look at things such as HMRC data on past employment and to access Government records—for example, on immigration fees that may have been paid in the past when someone should not have needed to pay them. At the moment, we are satisfied that this gives people the opportunity to engage, and we are keen that this is about working with the person to find out how they were affected, rather than getting into the type of adversarial legal process that could have been the alternative to the approach that we are adopting.
New clause 6 seeks to prevent the Home Office from reducing compensation awards due to criminality or the timeliness of actions to resolve status. In response to direct feedback from claimants and stakeholders, the Home Office has already made changes to the scheme’s mitigation policy. Individuals are no longer expected to show that they took immediate steps to resolve their status, and that was clarified in new guidance published on 5 March.
While it is reasonable to expect individuals who encountered difficulty in evidencing their lawful right to be in the UK to have taken some steps to try to resolve that, the Home Office will now consider any evidence of steps that someone took to resolve their situation, even if those steps were not taken as soon as reasonably practical when an individual lost their job or took place before an individual encountered difficulties. For example, that could include writing to a Member of Parliament rather than approaching the Home Office directly. That change means that some people may qualify for higher awards, particularly where it relates to loss of employment.
With regard to criminality, those with criminal convictions are not precluded per se from making a claim for compensation. However, being mindful of the Government’s obligations towards taxpayers’ money, we may reduce or decline an award if a claimant has a record of serious criminality. I was asked to explain why we would do that. There may be a claim for loss of employment due to a person not being able to show their migration status. If that claimant then had a serious criminal conviction shortly afterwards or during that period, it would not inherently flow that their employment would have carried on but for the migration status issue, because that serious offence would almost certainly have cost them their employment. But as I say, that does not preclude, and it is not a bar. We are always open with this process, as we work with stakeholders and the independent adviser in particular, but that explains why that would be done—because it seems unfair to compensate with taxpayers’ money when that employment may well have been lost anyway following a particular type of conviction.
New clause 7 seeks that no requirement be made of claimants to demonstrate a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims for actual losses under the scheme. The scheme awards compensation according to both actual losses and tariff-based awards. Evidential requirements have been designed to be straightforward and not too onerous. However, we do ask claimants to provide as much evidence as they can, so that the best assessment can be made. Caseworkers will work with applicants and contact other Government Departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, on their behalf where there may be evidential gaps. Where awards are tariff-based, caseworkers will make decisions on the balance of probabilities. Where awards are for actual losses, it is right that we seek to obtain  an appropriate level of assurance that those losses  were incurred, in order to fulfil our duty to properly manage money.

Stuart McDonald: I ask the Minister to look at that again. I get the point that caseworkers have to be very careful and seek as much evidence as possible when it comes to certain types of losses, including loss of earnings, but to phrase it as “beyond reasonable doubt” seems pretty controversial. All I am asking is that he goes away and thinks about that and perhaps consults Home Office solicitors, because it seems very unusual to demand that standard of proof. I understand the need for evidence, but “beyond reasonable doubt” seems very strange.

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the constructive way in which it was put. I will give him an undertaking to raise that point with the independent adviser and ask for a response to it.
New clause 8 seeks to allow claimants to appeal to the first-tier tribunal against determinations made under the scheme. As I have outlined, we have already established an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. The first stage is an internal Home Office review by someone who has not been involved previously in the individual’s case, but if the claimant remains dissatisfied, they can request a review by the Adjudicator’s Office, which is a non-departmental public body that is completely independent from the Home Office.
Moving on to the two amendments tabled by the official Opposition, amendment 4 seeks to formally define the Windrush compensation scheme as open to individuals from beyond the Caribbean Commonwealth. I appreciate the thought behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. The criteria for the scheme do not just apply to individuals from the countries of the Caribbean Commonwealth. I accept that there may a need to promote that point a bit more, but, to be clear, that restriction is not there.

Diane Abbott: Does the Minister not accept, though, that because the scheme is called the Windrush compensation scheme, some people might assume that it is only for people from the West Indies?

Kevin Foster: I very much understand the shadow Home Secretary’s point. Windrush is the name we have for the generation. It is the name that has been in the press. It is the name that the media know, and the name that many of the public would identify with—even though it is a ship that the vast majority of people in the Windrush generation would never have seen, yet alone sailed upon. It has become common parlance. I agree that we need to get the message out there that, although it is called the Windrush compensation scheme, it is not just about those who came from the Caribbean; it is wider. It is for Commonwealth citizens who settled or had the right of abode in the UK before 1 January 1973, plus any person of any nationality who arrived in the UK before 31 December 1988 and is lawfully in the UK or is now a British citizen, and estates of the deceased and others. We intend to continue to promote the scheme and to make sure that more people come forward.
I move on to amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the impact on family life of people who have difficulties in demonstrating their lawful status is taken into account. There is the ability to award compensation for impact on life, which is awarded on a series of levels, with payments ranging from £250 up to £10,000, where the effect on the claimant was profound and likely to be irreversible.
I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. and right hon. Members who have tabled some well-intended and well-thought-through amendments. I hope they will understand why it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendments.

Stuart McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the points raised. Through our interventions, I think the shadow Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we accept what the Minister has said, and we have asked him to go away with one or two points and ask further questions. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Diane Abbott: I just want to confirm that it is not our intention to vote against the Bill, and it is our intention to not press our amendments.
Just before the debate comes to a close, I would like to express, on his behalf, the regret of my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for not being here. He is in self-isolation due to the current public health problems.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Kevin Foster.)

Helen Hayes: It is very important, even in the context of the crisis we face, that the Government have made time to progress this piece of legislation. My constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood has a strong and direct connection to Windrush, since about 200 of the passengers on the original Empire Windrush came first to Clapham Common to find temporary accommodation in the Clapham deep shelter before finding their way to Coldharbour Lane in Brixton to find work.
From there, many of them found work locally at King’s College Hospital, where they helped to establish our NHS. It is particularly poignant to be debating the Bill at this time as many members of the Windrush generation, and indeed their descendants, still work still in that hospital, desperately seeking to save lives that are at risk from covid-19.
My constituency is home to many members of the Windrush generation and their families. It is also now home to the Black Cultural Archives, which sits proudly on Windrush Square. Later in my speech, I will return to the role that the Black Cultural Archives have played in the context of the Windrush scandal and compensation.
The impact of the Windrush scandal has been profound and devastating. In my team, we knew there was a scandal years before it was a story in the news. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was absolutely right to clarify, the scandal affects people from across the Commonwealth and not only from the Caribbean.
Indeed, our first Windrush case was a constituent who had arrived in the UK from Sierra Leone, decades ago. She was asked to provide proof of her status in the UK when she applied for her state pension, but she had arrived at the age of 14 with somebody who may or may not have been a relative. She did not have any papers. Despite her whole life being in the UK, having worked all her adult life, raised five children and having no remaining connections at all in Sierra Leone, the UK  Government threatened deportation. Her case was a scandal; we just did not know at the time that it was the Windrush scandal.
We saw many more cases and, eventually, the bigger picture was revealed. I pay tribute to the work of Amelia Gentleman in exposing, in such a forensic way, the extent and depth of the scandal up and down the country.
The consequences have been profound—not simply the grave injustice and material detriment suffered by thousands of people. It is a moment that gives rise to the need for deep reflection on our national identity and sense of community. That a group of people who have contributed so much could be treated so appallingly shows that something had gone badly wrong in our understanding of who we are as a country and, notwithstanding the compensation scheme, there is more work to do on that, particularly on reform of the history curriculum and what we teach our children about migration and colonialism. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to that.
My constituents’ experience of the compensation scheme to date has been very poor. The scandal itself was a fundamental breach of trust, and many people have not felt confident to come forward. Despite the Minister’s remarks in Committee, the form is complicated, and it is very easy to omit key details.
I sat down with one of my constituents to fill out the form on behalf of her mother, and it was only when we had worked through all 18 pages of it that I asked: “Is there anything else that you think your mother suffered as a consequence of being a victim of the Windrush scandal?” She then said, very quietly, “She lost her home. She was renting privately and, because she was not allowed to return to the UK, her home was repossessed by the landlord and she lost all her possessions, because there was nobody who could manage that and reclaim any of her belongings for her.”
That would not have been captured on the form had it not been for my prompting question at the end. Almost every one of my constituents who I have spoken has found it difficult to capture all the information on the form. Because of their experience with the Home Office, they fear the level of proof and the extent of evidence that will be required, and this is not an easy process for them.
The support that has been provided through the CAB has not been accessible or sufficiently expert, so it has been left to the voluntary sector, to pro bono lawyers and to organisations such as the Black Cultural Archives, which has done a heroic job but struggled to cope with the need. I welcome the proposals for a fund for grass-roots support that the Home Secretary recently announced, and I would welcome assurances from the Minister that some of that funding will be allocated to the BCA, which has done an extraordinary job—not only local but national in its reach—because it is trusted by the community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was right to highlight the need for a publicity campaign for the compensation scheme. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the content of such a publicity scheme and to who fronts it. The first community meeting to launch the compensation scheme was organised in my constituency  at a day’s notice. I was not informed as the local MP, many members of my community had no idea that the meeting was going ahead, and those who did were fearful of it being a meeting with the Home Office because of the breach of trust that I described earlier.
Finally, I wish to make a plea that has been made already in the public domain by Patrick Vernon, to whom I pay tribute as somebody who has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of Windrush citizens. Will the Government hand the administration of the scheme to another Government Department? The Home Office may have accepted the lessons learned review, and that is welcome, but it has not yet implemented the scale and depth of culture change that the review demands. As recently as last month, the Home Office was having to remove people from a charter deportation flight after a court decided that the Department had not followed due processes. The assurance that the Minister has tried to provide indicates a lack of understanding of exactly the extent of the breach of trust that has been caused by the Windrush scandal and the wider hostile environment. People are simply fearful of the Home Office and its capacity to ruin lives.
This has been an utterly shameful period in our history. The compensation scheme is welcome and important, but I hope the Government realise the breadth and depth of the work that they still need to do to change culture and rebuild trust. There is still a long way to go.

Stuart McDonald: I think I said all that I needed to say in Committee. The most important thing to happen this evening will be that we pass the Bill so that compensation continues to be paid. We have made some suggestions about how the compensation scheme can be improved, but we welcome the intent behind it and hope that it reaches as many people as it needs to reach.
Another important thing to happen this evening was the undertaking that there would be a proper and full debate about the lessons learned review that was published last Thursday. It was a hugely significant moment in modern British political history. There are so many aspects of the Windrush scandal that still have to be properly explored in this place, as well as within Government, and we look forward very much to playing our full part in that.

Diane Abbott: As I said in Committee, the Opposition support the Bill in principle, but it is unfortunate that we have had to discuss it before we have had a proper   debate about the lessons learned review. One thing that that review said was that this was not a mistake: there were problems in the whole culture and leadership of the Home Office. I understand why, given the public health tragedy in which we are engulfed, it has not proved possible at this point to have a serious debate on the lessons learned review, but until we have done that and absorbed some of the lessons that Wendy Williams was at such pains to set out in her review, we cannot have complete confidence that the compensation scheme will, even with all the best intentions of Ministers, go ahead at pace and that people will get what they are entitled to.
Finally, I want to talk about the people in the community who campaigned long and hard on this issue, notably Patrick Vernon, a Hackney resident who is well known to me. All sorts of people in the community understood there was a scandal, even before Amelia Gentleman’s articles, and they continue to campaign. The compensation Bill means nothing unless there is delivery as well as intent.

Kevin Foster: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will briefly respond. I appreciate the support that has been given to the Bill, and I wish to thank Martin Forde, QC, the independent adviser. As I said in Committee, we are still open to hearing suggestions as things move on, and we will certainly look to continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that people get the compensation they deserve. The ability to bid for the funding will be available; it would not be right for me to pledge funding to particular organisations on the Floor of the House. The Black Cultural Archives will have the opportunity to bid into the process, but I hope the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to give lists of groups that may do so, rather than going through the process that is in place. I hope that those who were affected by the Windrush scandal will see the type of debate we have had and see that even in the current circumstances there was a determination to get this Bill through. I accept the shadow Home Secretary’s point that this is not the ideal opportunity to have the longer debate that we will need to have on the Floor of the House at some point about the lessons learned review. I very much appreciate the support that has been given to this Bill by all Members today. Finally, let me wish the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) a speedy recovery, as I imagine it would have been hard for him to miss this debate, given his passion about this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That Damian Hinds, Sir Robert Syms, Tommy Sheppard and Mark Tami be appointed as Parliamentary members, and that Brigid Janssen, Elizabeth Peace (chair), Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright be appointed as external members, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
Last year, the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 received Royal Assent—indeed, uniquely, it did so twice. The Act established a sponsor body, which will have overall responsibility for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and act as a single client on behalf of both Houses. Since July 2018, the sponsor body has been established in shadow form, and has been getting on with the preparatory and due diligence work, so that it can take on the restoration and renewal programme. From 8 April 2020, the sponsor body will become substantive and formally responsible for the restoration and renewal programme.
As required under the Act, the motion before the House today confirms the appointment of Members from this House to the board of the sponsor body. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to Sir Patrick McLoughlin and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who have worked tirelessly as members of the shadow sponsor body and to improve the Act during its passage through the House. In addition, this motion confirms the roll-over of external members from the shadow to the substantive sponsor body. That will provide continuity for the board as it becomes established, while allowing for the opportunity for the sponsor board to evaluate the needs for its membership in the future.
Taken together, these appointments ought to strike the right balance between ensuring cross-party support for the works and the appropriate external professionalism and expertise. I wish the appointees every success. The restoration and renewal of this historic Palace will be a significant task, and ensuring that these works represent value for money for the taxpayer, which is perhaps the key thing, will remain absolutely at the forefront of their minds. One of the main aims of this project will be to keep costs down, and Her Majesty’s Government are willing to work collaboratively with the sponsor body in this important mission.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, which the Opposition support. I concur with every word he said. If we look at the list of the names in the motion, we see that one is that of the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), so keen is he to get on with the work. We know that all the members listed in the motion have the necessary expertise, particularly the external members, who cover heritage as well as accountancy. As far as the right hon. and hon. Members are concerned, we know they will provide plenty of expertise and important input into this very important project. I, too, wish them every success.

Edward Leigh: I welcome this motion. I served, under Dame Caroline Spelman, on the Joint Committee that recommended that we  proceed in this way. I have done a considerable amount of work on the subject over the years because, as the Leader of the House said, our primary concern should be the saving of public money.
I would like to have served on the sponsor body, but it was not to be. I wish those who have been appointed every success, because they have a very important task. Given the crisis that we are facing, we have to think again, and I am sure that when those on the sponsor body address the subject, their No. 1 concern will be to save public money, ensure the safety of Members and preserve this historic building.
Even before the public health crisis that we are facing, there were difficult decisions to be made about public spending, increases in taxation and trying to divert resources from London to the north of England in particular. Even before this crisis, which will probably necessitate the largest expansion of the state since the second world war, I think that people would have started to look askance at our spending billions of pounds on ourselves when there might well be a cheaper alternative. When the sponsor body has its first meeting, it might consider that this is the moment to review the whole project and look at whether we can do it significantly more cheaply than the present option.
When the House voted, quite narrowly, for a full decant, we were in a very different world. Of course, the original Select Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) served accepted a full decant on the basis that it would be possible to create a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House. The Committee was actually given the wrong measurements; the incompetence of this is beyond belief. It was then announced that because it was no longer possible to create such a Chamber, which the authorities claimed would have to be exactly the same size as the existing one, with the same size Division Lobbies—the whole works—it was now proposed to demolish all of Richmond House, at a cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds.
I have been working with SAVE, the architectural heritage body. We have come up with well-costed proposals, designed by architects, to create much more cheaply, if it was deemed necessary to have one, a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House that was exactly the same size—[Interruption.] It would be exactly the same size as this Chamber. There is absolutely no need to demolish Richmond House, which is an award-winning listed building.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s passion about this subject, but this is a very narrow motion about the membership of the Committee, not about the exact dimensions of any proposed future Chamber. I must hold the right hon. Gentleman to the particular matter before us. He can address the general issue, but talking about exact dimensions is going a bit far.

Edward Leigh: I will certainly not dwell on the exact dimensions. I was making the simple, general point that there might cheaper options than the proposal to demolish Richmond House and build a permanent replica Chamber.
The other point that the new sponsor body has to consider is what will happen when the House of Lords is moved to QEII. It would be possible to place the  Lords quite cheaply and simply in that building at a relatively small cost. There is already a large conference chamber there, which holds up to 700 people—big enough even for the House of Lords. Their lordships may have to forgo their planned rooftop terrace dining room, which would cost £200 million, but, given the present crisis facing the nation, I am sure that they will be prepared to do that.
Even more cheaply—speaking in very general terms, Madam Deputy Speaker, to comply with your ruling—it may not even be necessary to have a temporary Chamber erected in the courtyard of Richmond House. Having commissioned architects to work on this subject, I can say that it would be perfectly possible for this Chamber to move temporarily to the House of Lords Chamber, as we did in the second world war, with a line of route through Westminster Hall and Saint Stephen’s Chapel.
To sum up, there are many cheaper alternatives that must and should be explored by the sponsor body, as our primary concern is to save public money, carry out these works as expeditiously as possible and not waste time, perhaps until 2027, waiting for a replica Chamber to be built. We should get on with the work now and preserve this historic building.

Patrick Grady: If the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wants to sit in the House of Lords, I am sure that will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. We know that one day, that ambition of his will be fulfilled—[Interruption.] Exactly—if he wanted to be on the sponsor body, he could have moved an amendment on that this evening. He could have divided the House, and who knows? With the attendance here, it might have even gone through on the voices to let him serve.
I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Members who are leaving the shadow sponsor body—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray)—and I welcome those who are coming on to it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who cannot be here, is thrilled at the prospect of being part of this project and will, as the Scottish National party has always done, keep an incredibly sharp eye on the use of public funds and the opportunity that this must present to modernise and reform the practices and procedures of the House of Commons, however it meets.

Desmond Swayne: Oh no!

Patrick Grady: I am afraid so. It may disappoint the right hon. Member, but I notice that even their lordships up the back have new Division Lobbies in the Royal Gallery, because their current Division Lobbies would be completely unsuitable in the time of social distancing in which we live. We would be the same, so this will provide an opportunity, if these institutions are going to remain relevant into the 21st century, to make sure that they do, taking advantage of all the opportunities that R and R presents.

Desmond Swayne: On that note, ought we not to properly have had scrutiny hearings for these hon. Members who are going to sit  on the commission, so that we could ensure that they will not follow the lead that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has just given? It is for the whole House to determine what its procedures are and ought to be, and not for some subset to design them into some new pleasure dome, or whatever they plan to construct as a consequence of spending all this money.

David Linden: There is a serious point to this. The whole reason that we have to sit this distance apart from one another is that, if one thing has been taught about the context of this House and coronavirus, it is that this place does not work in terms of public health. It does not work in terms of being a functioning Parliament, so while there was a degree of bombast there, which I am sure is only engineered on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, an element of pragmatism is required on the part of hon. Members, is it not?

Desmond Swayne: This Chamber has survived many health emergencies, and I do not believe that we should design into the future the prospect of continuing viruses. Let us conquer the virus, rather than change procedures that have endured almost forever. I assure him that change is always for the worst.

Eleanor Laing: I call David Linden.

David Linden: I don’t think I can follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This has, as always, been a high-quality, if brief, debate, with people maintaining very safe distances. I think the right hon. and hon. Members whose names I have put forward are ones in whom the House can have complete confidence. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is here to listen to the debate; having known him since we were at university together, I have a special degree of confidence in him.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

Fees and Charges

That the draft Private Security Industry (Licence Fees) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
(1) That for the period specified in paragraph (4) of this Order, the following measures shall have effect in relation to the proceedings of any select committee which has the power to report from time to time.
(2) Members of any select committee to which this Order applies may participate in select committee proceedings through such electronic means of communication as have been approved by the Speaker.
(3) The Chair of any select committee to which this Order applies may report to the House an order, resolution or Report as an order, resolution or Report of the Committee which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Committee, if satisfied that all   members of the Committee have been consulted about the terms of the order, resolution or Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Committee.
(4) This Order shall have effect from the date that it is made until 30 June 2020, save that the Speaker may extend its effect by notifying the House that in his opinion it is expedient that these arrangements continue in force until a specified later date; more than one such notification may be given, but each such notification shall be given no less than a week before the expiry of this Order or any subsequent extension to it.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Adjournment

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)
House adjourned.